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.
So, just a model.
Again, it’s just a model.
That WAS his point. That and the fact that other solar activity does affect HF propagation. One can’t claim that a point itself is the reason why a point is moot.
Congratulations, your strained, circular argument backed you into a corner and caused you to reiterate the very comment that you initially criticized.
I wish you limited your claims to that which you know something about.
Besides, “trillion divided by quantity” is too clunky for casual conversation.
Also inaccurate in the direction of the math. By direct substitution it would be “trillion divided by smaller”, which is too clunky, and also inaccurate.
You’d wind up at “quantity divided by factor smaller”, which although technically correct, since “factor” would be a positive integer that makes “smaller” redundant.
Something like “that’d be my salary divided by four” would be accurate, but “that’s four times smaller than my salary” does sound emphatic.
You know, there are good reasons to not have discussions like this.
wobble says:
September 6, 2013 at 7:40 pm
“No, from basic physics one can calculate how much temperature change you get [the ‘expected’ value] from a given change of radiation received.”
So, just a model.
The Stefan-Boltzman law is no model http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law but the way nature works. Now, there is actually nothing wrong with good models.
That WAS his point. That and the fact that other solar activity does affect HF propagation. One can’t claim that a point itself is the reason why a point is moot.
To mention HF and TSI in the same statement was the off-topic thing. You may benefit from the comment by
kadaka (KD Knoebel) September 4, 2013 at 10:15 pm
I wish you limited your claims to that which you know something about
You can learn from my comments.
david eisenstadt says:
September 6, 2013 at 6:26 pm
how can something be a trillion times smaller than another quantity?
What I have as change in the wallet right now is a trillion times smaller than the National Debt. So this can easily happen.
Although it has been touched on here by a few, one wonders on the magnitude of the interaction between GCR and the Earth’s biosphere and the possible effects on climate change.
An interesting view on the biosphere and glaciation may be found in articles written by John Hammaker in the 60’s and 70’s.
He was focused on soil health and how it related to periods of glaciation. In particular he regarded the biosphere as an immense generator of CO2 fueled by microbes dependent on an ever decreasing source of minerals during interglacial periods.
Although some of his theories have been definitely disproved (we are still alive), they also seem to forecast some of the current climate trends.
See http://www.soilandhealth.org/01aglibrary/010146tsoc.pdf
The Svensmark paper describes a mechanism through which part of the equation in http://climaterealists.com/attachments/database/2010/corroborationofnaturalclimatechange.pdf calculates average global temperatures since before 1900 with R2 = 0.9.
Dan Pangburn says:
September 6, 2013 at 8:05 pm
calculates average global temperatures since before 1900 with R2 = 0.9.
As we have discussed on WUWT before, your equation is a fake using circular arguments and invalid ‘physics’.
I note Leif’s responses to my queries and see where I think he goes wrong.
Leif considers that I have cause and effect the wrong way round so that the gradient of tropopause height (and the height itself) between equator and poles is a consequence of surface heating beneath the troposphere.
However the fact is that the presence of ozone above the tropopause results in a temperature inversion whereby temperature rises with height instead of falling.
The cause is a direct interaction between ozone and incoming solar radiation.
It is that which sets the height of the tropopause by placing a ‘lid’ on convective energy transfers up through the troposphere from the surface.
Any changes in the amount of ozone will result in a change in the height of the tropopause and / or a change in the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles.
We have observed changes in ozone quantities as a result of changes in the level of solar activity.
Therefore I do not believe that I have cause and effect the wrong way around as Leif thinks.
It is true that the temperature of the surface below the troposphere will influence tropopause heights and gradients but in my view that would only be a modulating effect dependent on the proportion of ToA insolation that gets through the atmosphere to heat the oceans.
The secret to the climate conundrum is therefore to realise that ozone is in control with surface heating being merely a modulating factor and the entire global air circulation is a result of the interaction between ozone heating and surface (or rather ocean) heating.
At all times that circulation is always adapting to the interplay between surface heating and ozone heating so as to maintain ToA energy balance.
The effect of our emissions being indiscernible compared to the effects of solar influences on ozone amounts and ocean oscillation influences on surface temperatures.
Our climate system is simply the region of interaction between top down solar and bottom up oceanic thermal effects within the atmosphere and the global air circulation changes as necessary to maintain balance for the system as a whole.
The visible manifestation of the process in action is the cyclical expansion and contraction of convective cells within the troposphere and the latitudinal shifting of those cells and the jet stream tracks that run between them.
Those changes are cyclical because the initial solar input which drives the entire system is cyclical though with many irregularities along the way. The solar effects are further modulated by the complexity of the oceanic response which is itself made more complex by the interaction between oscillations in every ocean basin.
From Stephen Wilde on September 7, 2013 at 12:02 am:
As reported in 2010 here on WUWT, in the deep solar minimum of 2008-2009 the thermosphere collapsed, the height fell drastically. About 30% of that was tied to the decrease of Extreme Ultra-Violet (EUV), possibly 10% was from added atmospheric CO₂, with 60% attributed to “further research is required”.
You’re saying the tropospheric height varies with solar radiation, this is tied to ozone absorption of solar radiation, and ozone absorbs UV.
So did you see a matching decrease in tropospheric height 2008-2009?
“So did you see a matching decrease in tropospheric height 2008-2009?”
http://pafc.arh.noaa.gov/stories/viewer.php?pId=arctic&year=2009&extn=php&page=3
“To gauge how the stratosphere played a key role in the Arctic outbreak of 28 Dec 2008 . 11 Jan 2009 the geopotential heights through the depth of the atmosphere as well as the zonal-mean zonal wind anomalies in the mid-stratosphere were examined. The soundings from Anchorage were used to understand how stratosphere-troposphere coupling takes place during these Arctic outbreaks. Beginning around 30-31 December 2008, a notable change in the characteristic temperature pattern in the mid-troposphere through the stratosphere began to take place.These changes started to occur as geopotential heights in the atmosphere began to decrease,”
From Stephen Wilde on September 7, 2013 at 3:22 am:
Bah, worthless. That is garbage. Your Google-Fu is weak, Grasshopper.
http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/data-holdings/PIP/tropopause_height.shtml
“Tropopause Height daily/weekly/monthly averages, global 1×1 deg grids”
“Aqua/AIRS” “AIRS Level3”
Click on “Doc” column entry, the “Y”.
Run to Giovanni, “Atmospheric Portals”, select “Aqua/AIRS Global: Monthly”.
Select tropopause height, ascending and descending. Temporal: Jan 2006 to Feb 2013 (end of data) would have the 2008-2009 period, select. Visualization: Select time series. Generate. Wait for processing.
By the graphs there could be a 2008-2009 drop, looking at the peak months, but otherwise it looks like noise. Graphs saved, ASCII data downloaded for possible later analysis. (After that wait, might as well.)
Repeat, expanding to full period available, 9/2002 to 2/2013.
Nope, I’m not seeing it. There is certainly no dramatic drop as in the thermosphere. Perhaps you could tease out a statistically significant decrease, but it doesn’t look like much is there after you fiddle out the annual cycle variation.
As I had to search for the data you should have had to support your assertions, it is you who should crunch the data I found to locate a 2008-2009 tropopause height dip, if there is a valid one to be found there at all.
BTW, as requested by the Acknowledgement Policy:
They did ask nicely.
Leif Svalgaard says:
“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”
I never said that the maxima were interrupted, it’s the planetary pattern that gets interrupted where the weak cycles are, and there’s not much point you making comment on it until you have seen it.
“Now, since the data is so poor you might invent cycles to make things fit.”
No, I can now tell where all past maxima and weak cycles were back through 1000’s of years with this progression.
kadaka.
Given the dynamic nature of the tropopause I have doubts that the data is accurate enough to tease out height changes over and above the normal seasonal variation. After all, the solar influences that we are considering are usually spread across many decades.
Furthermore average height wouldn’t reveal changes in the gradient between equator and poles if the rise at one end is much the same as the fall at the other.
There is certainly no likelihood that any height changes will be anything like the scale observed in the thermosphere due to the huge density difference.
The record low solar activity occurred at much the same time as the record negative AO and the link I provided gives one local example of the regional reduction in heights that occurred towards the pole around that time.
How would you explain the changes in jet stream behaviour without a change in the gradient of tropopause heights between equator and poles?
Stephen Wilde says:
September 7, 2013 at 12:02 am
Any changes in the amount of ozone will result in a change in the height of the tropopause and / or a change in the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles.
We have observed changes in ozone quantities as a result of changes in the level of solar activity.
The temperature in the lower stratosphere [14-20 km altitude] should then show a solar cycle variation, but it does not: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Stratosphere-Trends-2012.pdf Figure 1
Leif Svalgaard said:
“The temperature in the lower stratosphere [14-20 km altitude] should then show a solar cycle variation, but it does not”
A single solar cycle is too small to make a difference. Multiple cycles over decades are necessary.
That said, your figure 1 shows that the earlier decline in temperature stopped in the late 90s when the sun started to become less active towards the end of cycle 23.
The test will be whether the lower stratosphere now starts to warm up if the sun stays quiet through cycle 25.
Stephen Wilde says:
September 7, 2013 at 6:53 am
A single solar cycle is too small to make a difference. Multiple cycles over decades are necessary.
The data covers three cycles 1979-2012
That said, your figure 1 shows that the earlier decline in temperature stopped in the late 90s when the sun started to become less active towards the end of cycle 23.
The temperature has been flat since 1993 and shows no solar cycle variation since 1979. The decreases happened after volcanic eruptions [el Chichon 1982 and Pinatubo 1991]. No solar cycle effects at all.
From Stephen Wilde on September 7, 2013 at 6:33 am:
The thermosphere responded quite dramatically over a very short period. The thermosphere is “puffed out” by more-energetic solar UV, you’re arguing the troposphere is “plumped up” by less-energetic solar UV.
With a solar change great enough to make such a severe change to the thermosphere, it sure seems to logically follow that the troposphere should have at least notably noticed it.
Before I get into your trying to pull the “Look, a squirrel!” defense, and before I get a much-needed nap, I got a question suitable for your expertise.
The tropopause height data is global averages. As the entire globe is involved, why are you saying there is seasonal variation?
– – – – – – – – –
milodonharlani,
Thanks for your comment. Always good to have one.
I did not respond initially to your comment addressed to me because I wanted to first give Leif & Mosher the opportunity to respond to me since I had addressed my comment to them. {Leif – thanks for your always prompt responses}
I love commentary that wanders into discussions about extraterrestrial phenomena and the possibilities of their effects on the Earth-Atmosphere System.
Not only is the content of the commentary valuable. The dynamics of the human interaction is valuable as well; you get to know the persons. It is extremely important to me to understand a person as well as his/her concepts. I also find it extremely valuable to meet commenters in person (physically face to face) because words on paper or in a blog can only convey so much about what a person is all about.
I have had the pleasure of meeting Leif. And I look forward to eventually meeting many of commenters engaging at this wonderful venue at WUWT. : )
John
Your model merely utilizes Stefan-Boltzman, a law. Your model is still a model.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with good models. Many good models have good predictive qualities, but they are still just models.
No, it’s was completely germane. Stating that HF propagation is affected by solar output while seemingly unaffected by variations in TSI was completely appropriate for this thread.
No, and I explained why in my responses to him. And his eventual conclusions seemed to support what Fred Berple wrote.
It would be easier to learn from your comments if you didn’t force me to question your credibility like you did with this HF propagation topic.
Btw, it would be easier to learn from your comments if they were geared more towards explanation rather than zinger.
Stephen Wilde says:
September 7, 2013 at 6:53 am
A single solar cycle is too small to make a difference. Multiple cycles over decades are necessary.
Above 35 km, there is a solar cycle variation [as expected] on top of the volcanic spikes and the general decline since 1979. The decline has been linked to the cooling expected from increasing CO2
wobble says:
September 7, 2013 at 8:36 am
Your model merely utilizes Stefan-Boltzman, a law. Your model is still a model.
1st of all, everything is a model. And there is nothing wrong with that. If you read the temperature off an old-fashioned mercury thermometer you are using a model that relates the length of the mercury string to temperature. 2nd, if you heat a piece of rock by radiation you will find that its temperature is related to the amount of heat you supply. The same with the Earth and with a steak sizzling on a BBQ.
No, it’s was completely germane. Stating that HF propagation is affected by solar output while seemingly unaffected by variations in TSI was completely appropriate for this thread.
Nonsense, as HF propagation is not climate. It is like saying that aurorae on Saturn are germane for the climate.
It would be easier to learn from your comments if you didn’t force me to question your credibility like you did with this HF propagation topic.
My credibility has nothing to do with your misconception of the relevance of the HF propagation.
Stephen, Leif does not understand you need a certain degree of magnitude change and duration of time in solar activity in order for it to translate to a cause and effect on the climatic system of earth.
He thinks any change on the sun should correlatee to a change to theclimatic system of earth,and if this does not happen the connection is not there. BIZARRE THINKING.
Solar flux at 101.
Leif Svalgaard said:
“The data covers three cycles 1979-2012”
There is a clear inflection point in the late 90s when the decline flattens out and going by some of the data there is even a slight increase at some levels since then.
and
“Above 35 km, there is a solar cycle variation [as expected] on top of the volcanic spikes and the general decline since 1979. The decline has been linked to the cooling expected from increasing CO2”
There has been no general decline since the late 90s despite rapidly increasing human emissions of CO2. Furthermore for the period 2004 to 2007 at least (I await an update) there was an unexpected warming above 45km despite the less active sun. That suggests that the net thermal effect for both mesosphere and stratosphere from solar variations may be of the reverse sign from that expected, namely cooling for an active sun and warming for a quiet sun.Joanna Haigh commented to just that effect in relation to certain levels within the atmosphere.
kadaka said:
“The tropopause height data is global averages. As the entire globe is involved, why are you saying there is seasonal variation?”
There is seasonal variation in tropopause heights and therefore the gradient of tropopause height between equator and pole in each hemisphere.
I propose that there is a separate background change over decades from variations in solar activity.
There is no need for plumping up. The changes are subtle and long term. The graphs produced by Leif show the general trends such as cooling stratosphere pre about 1995 and flat or a slight warming afterwards to date.
Furthermore, the important feature need not be a general global increase in average heights but merely a change in the gradient of height between equator and poles.
Rather like a see-saw.
Two regions counted with the overall area decreasing. My feeling is that there is a change in the already weak SC24 output, the fire has gone out and we may be witnessing the start of a ever decreasing slope of solar activity heading towards the next solar minimum. The northern hemisphere has been the backbone of this cycle which has now expired, the southern hemisphere overall has been weak and unlikely to prop up or produce a second peak in SC24.
The chances of SC24 following the form of SC14 are now looking very slim…..