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.
Above is from the Layman sunspot site which I agree with . That count and area method depicts what is happening on the sun the best.
Solar flux readings equate better to that count,whereas today’s crazy way of counting sunspots give a completedistortion.
Everyone should really switch to the amount of area of the sun the total area of sunspots cover to get the best picture.
This counting of sunspots is not objectivre ,with area coverage of sunspots it would be very objective.
Leif predicted from Aug 06 ,2013-Dec. 31, 2013 that the solar flux average for this time frame would be 120.
And you’re just using your model to predict the increased temperature of the earth or the increased temperature of the steak on a BBQ. Stop pretending that your prediction is a definitive outcome. I can model temperature increase inside a home from a new heat source, but the opposite could happen (temperature could decrease) if the heat source is located underneath the home thermostat and the air conditioning is running.
Oh please. A BBQ isn’t climate, yet you just thought it was important to use that as an demonstrative example. Discussing the effects the sun has is most certainly germane to climate discussions.
No, it’s not, and you know it.
Keep digging, Leif. It’s fun watching you twist yourself around after wading into something that you didn’t fully understand. I understand the issue perfectly.
Stephen is correct in that the stratosphere is not showing the cooling that was predicted by AGW theory.
Not surprising since everthing this idiotic theory has predicted has never materalized.
Stephen Wilde says:
September 7, 2013 at 9:29 am
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.
The data to look at is the bottom two plots that show the temperature just above the tropopause. There is no solar cycle variation and no gradual decline.
There has been no general decline since the late 90s despite rapidly increasing human emissions of CO2.
Contradicts you contention that with a less active Sun, the temperature should decrease.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 7, 2013 at 9:37 am
Above is from the Layman sunspot
The Layman Sunspot Count is junk, is misconceived, and is uncalibrated. It is purportedly an attempt to match Wolf’s count during solar cycle 5. Wolf was not even born during SC5. The current values we have for SC5 were constructed by Wolfer in 1902. Wolfer did not throw away specks.
The thermosphere is greatly influenced by solar activity(shrinks during low solar activity) , since the atmosphere is interconnected a change in one part of the atmosphere is going to effect all of the other parts.
As I said Leif the best way to evaluate sunspots should be by the area of the surface of the sun the sunspots cover. This is the most objective way to evalute the intensity or lack of intensity of sunspots.
Absent that, opinions as to which methold of counting sunspots is most accurate will vary, as is the case with me and you.
I am going to hold Leif’s feet to the fire, (but will be fair), as far as his solar predictions and solar /climate interactions go.
Time will tell.
wobble says:
September 7, 2013 at 9:50 am
And you’re just using your model to predict the increased temperature of the earth or the increased temperature of the steak on a BBQ.
I’m using the laws of physics to tell me how much the temperature increases when the radiation is cranked up. This works equally well for the Earth and for the Steak.
A BBQ isn’t climate, yet you just thought it was important to use that as an demonstrative example.
A BBQ illustrates the effect of increased heat radiation very well so is a good example for climate. HF does not, so is not a good example.
Keep digging, Leif. It’s fun watching you
I’m glad to provide entertainment for you. I hope that some of the education I provide will rub off too. We shall see how much longer you display your learning disability for all to see.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 7, 2013 at 9:54 am
Stephen is correct in that the stratosphere is not showing the cooling that was predicted by AGW theory.
The long-term trend above 35 km definitely is downwards. Stephen has been claiming for years that when the Sun becomes less active [as it has over that last 30 years] the stratosphere will cool. You are saying that Stephen is wrong on that?
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 7, 2013 at 9:58 am
The thermosphere is greatly influenced by solar activity(shrinks during low solar activity) , since the atmosphere is interconnected a change in one part of the atmosphere is going to effect all of the other parts.
No, since for every atom in the thermosphere there are 100 billion molecules in the troposphere. The tail does not wag the dog.
Stephen .I think you and I and others should be quite pleased as to what has been [taking] place with the climate in relationship to solar activity.
We saw a sure sign back around 2009-2011 that the quiet sun translated into a more meridional atmospheric [circulation], while [geological] activity was trending up.
Since the very weak maximum of solar cycle 24 those trends came to a halt if not a reverse, but this will be short lived, as the maximum of solar cycle 24 fades away.
Maybe solar flux will break a 100 in the next few days, and this is the maximum !!
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 7, 2013 at 10:01 am
As I said Leif the best way to evaluate sunspots should be by the area of the surface of the sun the sunspots cover. This is the most objective way to evalute the intensity or lack of intensity of sunspots.
And more than a hundred years of observation of both show that the sunspot number very closely match the sunspot areas, so either can be used.
opinions as to which methold of counting sunspots is most accurate will vary
Opinions are irrelevant, what matters is that the spots are counted the same way and that they agree with the sunspot areas [and with the F10.7 microwave flux]
Leif said:
“Stephen has been claiming for years that when the Sun becomes less active [as it has over that last 30 years] the stratosphere will cool. ”
Don’t know where you got that idea.
I have been clear all along that the stratosphere appears to cool with an active sun (less ozone) and warm with an inactive sun (more ozone).
The ozone response appears to be of opposite sign to that generally supposed. The 2004 – 2007 data relating to ozone changes above 45 km is supportive of that.
I expect we will find that the sign of the ozone response below 45 km is actually set by the response above 45 km after a period of lag time. The ozone available above 45 km determines how much ozone can accumulate below that level.
Such a proposition would also kill the CFC theory.
So far the quieter sun has merely put a stop to the earlier cooling from the more active sun.
Although the sun has been getting less active for 30 years it remained at a high level until the late 90s and so continued to cool the stratosphere until activity dropped dramatically at the end of cycle 23.
I don’t share Salvatore’s view about volcanic activity, by the way, but I appreciate his general support.
What I say and Stephen can chime in, is when the sun is quiet the temperature gradient between the poles and the equator in the stratopshere changes due to ozone distribution changes which will result in the polar areas of the stratosphere to warm more in contrast to lower latitudes of the stratosphere translating into a more meridional atmospheric circulation.
It does not matter per say if the stratosphere warms or cools, it is the temperature contrast.
As far as the thermosphere effect no effect,again thresholds have to be considered, you just for some reason do not understand THRESHOLDS, which says an x level of change will translate into an impact if the x levelis reached, if not reached no visible impact will be realized.
For some reasons the concept of thresholds is not part of your way of thinking.
.
Stephen Wilde says:
September 7, 2013 at 10:23 am
Don’t know where you got that idea.
From statements like this:
Although the sun has been getting less active for 30 years it remained at a high level until the late 90s and so continued to cool the stratosphere until activity dropped dramatically at the end of cycle 23.
remained high …so … continued to cool
Leif when you have modern sunspot counts north of a 80 with a solar flux reading in the low 100’s something is out of wack.
Leif if you have specks counted as sunspots the sunspot count will be high by today’s way of counting, but the area coverage will show a completly different picture.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 7, 2013 at 10:30 am
Leif when you have modern sunspot counts north of a 80 with a solar flux reading in the low 100′s something is out of wack.
Except that we don’t. For 2012 the sunspot number was 57.7 and the flux was 120.0, for 2013 the sunspot number to now has been 60.7 and the flux has been 118.2. Yesterday, the sunspot number was 32 and the flux was 103.
I disagree with Leif on much, but I think he is GREAT and does not shy away from his convictions.
I wish nothing but good fortune for him, regradless of are dramatic differences.
.
Look at all the time he spends responding, it is wonderful right or wrong.
Today I see solar flux 101 sunspot count 41. I am going to watch this closely going forward
Leif, just re-read.
A high level of activity cools and a low level warms.
A high level of activity can continue to cool whilst it falls until it goes below a specific threshold.
Which it did in the late 90s when the level of solar activity became low enough for the cooling of the stratosphere to stop.
If the sun stays quiet for long enough then we should see stratospheric warming.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 7, 2013 at 10:34 am
Leif if you have specks counted as sunspots the sunspot count will be high by today’s way of counting, but the area coverage will show a completly different picture.
Except it doesn’t. The relation between sunspot counts and sunspot area has been stable and constant since 1947. Here is the formula that converts area A to spots R: R = 0.39 A^0.732.
Most people that agree with STEPHEN in principal think a quieter sun will cause stratospheric cooling,(Stephen thinks the opposite, but same result) but that does not really matter, what matters is we all agree a quiet sun will result in a more meridional atmospheric circulation pattern, over time.
Due to a decrease in the temp. contrast between the polar areas of the stratosphere versus lower latitudes of the stratosphere.
thanks for the formula
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 7, 2013 at 10:37 am
Look at all the time he spends responding, it is wonderful right or wrong.
Actually, not much time, as it is easy.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 7, 2013 at 10:40 am
Today I see solar flux 101 sunspot count 41. I am going to watch this closely going forward
You are looking at the wrong sunspot number [NOAAs], and the numbers you quote were for yesterday. You should look at SIDCs http://sidc.be/products/meu/ where you will find SSN=28 for today.
Stephen Wilde says:
September 7, 2013 at 10:44 am
A high level of activity cools and a low level warms.
A high level of activity can continue to cool whilst it falls until it goes below a specific threshold.
Which it did in the late 90s when the level of solar activity became low enough for the cooling of the stratosphere to stop. If the sun stays quiet for long enough then we should see stratospheric warming.
All woolly and inconsistent, I’ll stick with your statement that “Although the sun has been getting less active for 30 years it remained at a high level until the late 90s and so continued to cool the stratosphere”
In any event, Figure 1 shows no cooling or warming in the lower stratosphere since Pinatubo regardless of solar cycles and ozone, and that was the point: no temperature change just above the tropopause, so no solar effect via the stratosphere
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 7, 2013 at 10:54 am
Most people that agree with STEPHEN in principal think a quieter sun will cause stratospheric cooling,(Stephen thinks the opposite, but same result)
Stephen even managed to confuse Sal.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 7, 2013 at 10:56 am
thanks for the formula
You get a Figure too: http://www.leif.org/research/Relation-SSA-SSN-Since-1947.png
Several things to note:
1) almost perfect agreement, so the sunspot number is a VERY good proxy for the area covered. This is no news [has been known for about 70 years]
2) the only [small] disagreement is since 2001 where the sunspot number is a little bit too low [not too high as you think]. We think that is due to the Livingston & Penn effect that causes a deficit of small spots [‘specks’] which in turn, obviously, makes the sunspot number a bit to low. See http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Lefevre.pdf
So, I don’t want to hear any more about specks and the wrong conclusions you draw from your ignorance of the facts. This comment is a teaching moment for you. Grab it.
It seems to me that the discussion on this topic has wound down, so I close down my attention to further comments.