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:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 6, 2013 at 1:09 pm
Thanks for that contribution to the history of science on the Maunder Minimum & other minima.
The subsequent (?) discovery of the degree of spectral variation in TSI & Svensmark’s laboratory experimentation might revive Dr. Eddy’s paradigm.
EACH .1 % change in TSI equates to a temp. change of .1 to .2 c, but do not forget ocean heat conntent will be effected if solar visible light decreases.
Estimates of a TSI decline of .3 to .6 ,during the Maunder Minimum are quite common place.
wobble says:
September 6, 2013 at 12:47 pm
Are you claiming that variations in TSI do influence climate in the troposphere?
Absolutely, to the tune of 0.1 degrees.
milodonharlani says:
September 6, 2013 at 12:47 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.
Well, why did you bring it up then? But since I’m always willing to learn from my mistakes, please find whatever you can.
Stephen Wilde says:
September 6, 2013 at 12:57 pm
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 important word is ‘seem’ and thus in the eye of the beholder, so I accept that you might seem to think so.
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 stratosphere allows the tropopause to rise.
I think it is the mostly the other way around, the tropopause responds to the average temperature of the entire layer that lies underneath it, it is at its peak levels over the Equator, and reaches minimum heights over the poles. Again, there is an operative word ‘in part’, which when not numerically specified make the statement meaningless.
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 poles see less of the Sun than elsewhere so the word ‘any solar’ are too vague to merit discussion.
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.
It is the other way around: the gradient changes as a function of the climate.
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.
See above.
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.
You have cause and effect reversed.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 6, 2013 at 1:01 pm
because you don’t have the data.
But you can speculate better because of the lack of date: less data = better speculation.
it ain’t going to change my mind or the minds of many who agree essentially with my stance, and there are many.
Once you have tasted the cool-aid you are lost. Your argument that ‘there are many’ is like saying it is healthy to smoke because ‘there are many’ who do it.
the AGW fanatics most agree with my stance
Yes, because it is important to them to have the Sun provide the variability before we began driving around in SUVs.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 6, 2013 at 1:09 pm
Ignorance is bliss.
You should know.
milodonharlani says:
September 6, 2013 at 1:20 pm
The subsequent (?) discovery of the degree of spectral variation in TSI & Svensmark’s laboratory experimentation might revive Dr. Eddy’s paradigm.
The general opinion at the moment is that the spectral variations are artifacts and not real.
Svensmark’s finding is not about climate, but about conversion of SO2 and H2O to H2SO4.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 6, 2013 at 1:31 pm
EACH .1 % change in TSI equates to a temp. change of .1 to .2 c
Actually more like 0.07 c
Then why did you claim that “TSI is where the energy is” as if that was any more relevant on the climate that other solar activity?
If both are equally irrelevant on climate, then it seems as if you were just providing a throw-away OT comment.
Again, Fred Berple’s comment was germane, and I think you blindly waded into a discussion that you didn’t fully understand. And I think that you’re inflated ego prevents you from letting the issue go.
wobble says:
September 6, 2013 at 1:53 pm
Then why did you claim that “TSI is where the energy is” as if that was any more relevant on the climate that other solar activity?
Because since it is where the energy, TSI dominates over other solar activity.
If both are equally irrelevant on climate,
TSI is very relevant as it causes a temperature wobble of ~0.1 degrees.
<i.And I think that you’re inflated ego prevents you from letting the issue go.
And that is why you keep responding instead of letting the issue go, right?
Not with respect to climate – which is what YOU claimed was the only relevant topic here.
First, it’s amazing that you would definitively claim that ~0.1 (which is NOT the same as 0.1 – after all, 0 is approximately 0.1, too) is “very relevant…”
Second, it’s amazing that you are definitely claiming that no other types of solar output metrics are able to have an effect of ~0.1 degrees.
Not really. I didn’t approach this issue irresponsibly – you did. You were the one that commented without proper consideration. I’m merely exposing your oversized ego. It’s ok if you think that you’re doing the same with me, but that’s just silly.
wobble says:
September 6, 2013 at 2:15 pm
First, it’s amazing that you would definitively claim that ~0.1 (which is NOT the same as 0.1 – after all, 0 is approximately 0.1, too) is “very relevant…”
The expected variation is 0.07, which is ~0.1. The usual notion is to quote the significant digits, so ~0.1 is not the same a 0. It normally means a number between 0.05 and 0.15.
Second, it’s amazing that you are definitely claiming that no other types of solar output metrics are able to have an effect of ~0.1 degrees.
No larger solar cycle effect is observed.
Not really. I didn’t approach this issue irresponsibly – you did. You were the one that commented without proper consideration.
HF propagation varies with the solar cycle due to absorption of very shortwave solar radiation which does [not] penetrate to the lower atmosphere and is thus not imparting much energy to the climate system, and is therefore not germane.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 6, 2013 at 12:17 pm
“Sun-Weather-Climate is firmly within my field of expertise, as least so think [thought] my peers:
[…]
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. The field that we revived has pretty much died again by now; a fate the field has suffered before and will suffer again:”
My peers call me one of the best long range weather forecasters in the world, so the field is much more alive than ever. I know Willis had a good look and found nothing, but I was interested if you had spent any time looking at heliocentric planetary cycles/configurations in relation to weather or climate at any scale?
Ulric Lyons says:
September 6, 2013 at 3:49 pm
My peers call me one of the best long range weather forecasters in the world
Who and how many are your peers?
I was interested if you had spent any time looking at heliocentric planetary cycles/configurations in relation to weather or climate at any scale?
I don’t think the planetary cycles control the weather [or my life, as a Taurus] directly, so the assumption would be that they do it via controlling solar activity. For that I can refer you to http://www.leif.org/EOS/aa21713-No-Planetary-Solar-Act.pdf that concludes: “There is no evidence for a planetary influence on solar activity” and I have recently looked at that myself: http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Fall%202011%20SH34B-08.pdf with a negative result.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 6, 2013 at 12:40 pm
“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.”
It’s clear from the SABER data that a substantial amount of the heating of the thermosphere is by the solar wind. Are we saying that the collective heat of this region of the atmosphere never reaches the troposphere or the surface? And surely Joule heating of the upper atmosphere would be stronger in the polar regions, and force strong circulation that can propagate down through the atmospheric levels?
Ulric Lyons says:
September 6, 2013 at 4:11 pm
It’s clear from the SABER data that a substantial amount of the heating of the thermosphere is by the solar wind. Are we saying that the collective heat of this region of the atmosphere never reaches the troposphere or the surface? And
The thermosphere is a trillion times thinner than the troposphere [density decreases 1000 times for each 50 km you ascend], so there is not much heat up there to reach down.
Leif Svalgaard says:
“The thermosphere is a trillion times thinner than the troposphere [density decreases 1000 times for each 50 km you ascend], so there is not much heat up there to reach down.”
It does have a large volume and a very high temperature. So what of strong polar circulation from Joule heating?
“There is no evidence for a planetary influence on solar activity” and I have recently looked at that myself:”
You mean you failed to find any, I see also that Wolf picked the wrong planetary combinations for the sunspot cycles.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 6, 2013 at 1:43 pm
Yes, Svensmark’s findings aren’t yet about climate, but demonstrate the mechanism whereby GCRs could affect climate. It’s not unusual in the history of science for hypotheses thought shot down to be resurrected, either with different explanations or with a revival of the original suggestion.
The situation regarding possible solar influences on climate is now similar to observations of the fossil record before Darwin & of continental connections before sea floor spreading. There seems to be something there, but a plausible explanation is lacking. It may not exist in this case.
Will look for the instances I cited, but might take too long, being unable to search my messages or IIRC Tony’s in that thread with you.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 6, 2013 at 4:31 pm
It does have a large volume and a very high temperature. So what of strong polar circulation from Joule heating?
For each atom in the thermosphere there is more than 10 billion molecules in the stratosphere+troposphere, so even if the kinetic energy of each atom is 10 times that of the energy of a molecule in the S+T [corresponding to a temperature of more than 2000 degrees], if you could take all the atoms up there [or their energy] all the way down you have to distribute each atom’s excess energy to 10 billion molecules. Each of these will not get much, I reckon.
You mean you failed to find any, I see also that Wolf picked the wrong planetary combinations for the sunspot cycles.
I mean that there isn’t any that is convincing. Lots of kooky ones, though, but you would no consider those, would you?
milodonharlani says:
September 6, 2013 at 4:35 pm
It’s not unusual in the history of science for hypotheses thought shot down to be resurrected, either with different explanations or with a revival of the original suggestion.
That is VERY unusual and only happens in the rarest of cases.
There seems to be something there, but a plausible explanation is lacking.
It is the other way around: you have an explanation for an effect that doesn’t seem to be there.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 6, 2013 at 4:47 pm
milodonharlani says:
September 6, 2013 at 4:35 pm
It’s not unusual in the history of science for hypotheses thought shot down to be resurrected, either with different explanations or with a revival of the original suggestion.
Dr. S: That is VERY unusual and only happens in the rarest of cases.
M: Einstein’s “mistake” on an accelerating expanding universe comes to mind. Evo-devo is to some extent reviving not only Neo-Lamarckist thought, but Goethe’s concepts as well. Bloodletting is making a comeback for some indications. So unusual, yes, but not unknown.
M: There seems to be something there, but a plausible explanation is lacking.
Dr. S: It is the other way around: you have an explanation for an effect that doesn’t seem to be there.
M: I noted that before, when approached from a different angle. IMO the connection between solar activity or lack thereof & climate on Earth does seem to exist. If it hadn’t at one time appeared so to Dr. Eddy, he wouldn’t have been motivated to come up with the explanation that he did. It still seems to exist to many perfectly respectable scientists.
Here is one of the prior exchanges, regarding your having overlooked a possibility in a field outside your expertise, for which I was looking, the description of which I garbled (owing perhaps to early stage Alzheimer’s), so no surprise you didn’t recall it:
“lsvalgaard says:
May 26, 2013 at 11:46 am
Tree rings might be a proxy for moisture or growing season length rather than temperature directly.
Wouldn’t a warmer climate have a longer growing season?
——————————————————————————–
milodonharlani says:
May 26, 2013 at 11:44 am
One would think so, unless the greater warmth were concentrated in the winter, when most plants would be dormant, anyway, without materially affecting the other seasons.”
You might recall our exchange over whether a Swedish source used the wrong date for an event in Iceland. Maybe you still don’t think that it or yourself were in error, but IMO the source had to have confused two different events. That one would be fairly easy to find, should you wish your memory jogged.
The other instance I cited would be harder to find. My errors would be easier.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/26/briffa-yamal-reputational-damage-and-all-that/
The “expected” variation???? Do you mean that there’s a range of probably variations? Does that mean that it’s statistically possible that TSI variation will not have any effect on temperature?
Because earlier in the thread you claimed that variation in TSI “Absolutely” effects climate “to the tune of 0.1 degrees.” Now you’re saying that 0.1 is only the “expected” effect?
It’s hilarious that you keep repeating this claim despite the fact that nobody is arguing otherwise. Fred Berple’s point was that since it’s obvious that other solar output metrics affect HF propagation more than variations in TSI, then it’s possible that other solar output metrics could affect temperature. This is true. Just because you haven’t found the link yet, doesn’t mean that one definitively doesn’t exist. It certainly may, and someone smarter than you might find one despite your conclusion – so stop pretending that you’ve already solved all the mysteries.
Leif Svalgaard says:
“I mean that there isn’t any that is convincing. Lots of kooky ones, though, but you would no consider those, would you?”
One particular set of bodies is highly convincing at tracking cycle maxima dates, and plots exactly what happens through the weak cycles in late Maunder, Dalton, the 1880/90’s, and cycles 24 and 25, it is very hard to spot, though very simple in itself. I was on to the right bodies at least 5 years ago from orbital synodic harmonic analysis, but only spotted the correct pattern between them very recently. My approach is to not assume a mechanism, but let the successful correlations suggest what the mechanisms may be.
milodonharlani says:
September 6, 2013 at 5:03 pm
So unusual, yes, but not unknown.
Winning the lottery is not unknown, but very unusual for a given person.
If it hadn’t at one time appeared so to Dr. Eddy, he wouldn’t have been motivated to come up with the explanation that he did.
He was motivated by the erroneous measurements by Abbot [the errors were too large].
It still seems to exist to many perfectly respectable scientists.
It is also good for funding…even some of my papers http://www.leif.org/research/CEAB-Cliver-et-al-2013.pdf
“Wouldn’t a warmer climate have a longer growing season?”
Was a question…
One would think so, unless the greater warmth were concentrated in the winter
But for the cases [e.g. global temperature] where that is not the case…
You might recall our exchange over whether a Swedish source used the wrong date for an event in Iceland. Maybe you still don’t think that it or yourself were in error, but IMO the source had to have confused two different events.
Perhaps, but I don’t see that as a fault on my part that the source was confused. I personally have great respect for historical accounts and do not discount them lightly.
wobble says:
September 6, 2013 at 5:22 pm
The “expected” variation???? Do you mean that there’s a range of probably variations?
No, from basic physics one can calculate how much temperature change you get [the ‘expected’ value] from a given change of radiation received.
Because earlier in the thread you claimed that variation in TSI “Absolutely” effects climate “to the tune of 0.1 degrees.” Now you’re saying that 0.1 is only the “expected” effect?
The 0.1 degrees is the effect calculated from physical laws and I do expect to get what physical laws predict.
Fred Berple’s point was that since it’s obvious that other solar output metrics affect HF propagation more than variations in TSI,
Variations in TSI as such do not affect HF propagation, so the point was moot.
so stop pretending that you’ve already solved all the mysteries.
I’m waiting for the solution to whatever mystery you might suggest. I can only go with what I know something about, but you seem to have no problem going farther than that,
Ulric Lyons says:
September 6, 2013 at 5:30 pm
One particular set of bodies is highly convincing at tracking cycle maxima dates, and plots exactly what happens through the weak cycles in late Maunder, Dalton
The use of the word ‘exactly’ here for times where our knowledge of the sunspot number is very uncertain is perhaps not appropriate.
and cycles 24 and 25, it is very hard to spot
Especially for things that haven’t happened yet…
let the successful correlations suggest what the mechanisms may be
Remember that correlation is not causation.
Leif Svalgaard says:
Jeez Dr Svalgaard, you have a PhD…
“The thermosphere is a trillion times thinner than the troposphere [density decreases 1000 times for each 50 km you ascend], so there is not much heat up there to reach down.”
hate to sound like a putz, but how can something be a trillion times smaller than another quantity?
what you mean is “one trillionith the density”
once you get one time smaller than an original quanity, youre at zero.
dont mean to be a grammar freak, just sayin it cause its true.
Leif Svalgaard says:
“The use of the word ‘exactly’ here for times where our knowledge of the sunspot number is very uncertain is perhaps not appropriate”
It is not about sunspot number so much as showing which cycles are weak, and where their maxima are. It’s along the lines of one repeating pattern getting interrupted for two out of every ten cycles.
“Especially for things that haven’t happened yet…”
Seeing how robust this progression is, I have no doubt that cycle 25 will be weak too, you should take a look at it.
From david eisenstadt on September 6, 2013 at 6:26 pm:
Strangely enough, this discussion has happened before on this site. Since it’s generally understood that “factor times greater than number” means number times factor, and “factor times smaller than number” means number divided by factor, it’s not an issue.
Besides, “trillion divided by quantity” is too clunky for casual conversation.
As if I would say “four times smaller” you’d know that meant times the inverse, that is multiplied by one divided by four, one time smaller would be times one divided by one, which is one, thus the result of one time smaller than an original quantity is the original quantity.
Now if you said zero times greater, then you’d be at zero.
But never say “zero times smaller” or somewhere a kitten’s head will explode. Why would you want to kill a kitten?
david eisenstadt says:
September 6, 2013 at 6:26 pm
“The thermosphere is a trillion times thinner than the troposphere [density decreases 1000 times for each 50 km you ascend], so there is not much heat up there to reach down.”
hate to sound like a putz, but how can something be a trillion times smaller than another quantity?
what you mean is “one trillionith the density”
http://www.english-online.at/geography/atmosphere/layers-of-the-atmosphere.htm :
“As you go up the air gets thinner”
But it should have been clear that what was measured was density [there was even a give-away: ‘density decreases..]. The purpose of language is communication, and if you got my meaning, the construct served its purpose.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 6, 2013 at 6:30 pm
It’s along the lines of one repeating pattern getting interrupted for two out of every ten cycles.
The pattern of maxima was never ‘interrupted’, continuing the ‘pattern’ here http://sidc.be/sunspot-index-graphics/wolfaml.php with two weak cycles every 104 years gets you back to the strong cycles Galileo was observing. Now, since the data is so poor you might invent cycles to make things fit.