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.
Where’s Leif and his “the sun doesn’t vary enough”?
REPLY: Leif talks about TSI not varying enough, and he’s right. Magnetic field is a whole different animal – Anthony
Leif?
Sorry but this was all settled already. Time to move on from these scientific and experimental distractions and get on with the work of total global domination, err, I mean tackling man-made climate change.
So, this would seem to lend support to the apparent relationship between sun spot minima and maxima and warming and cooling in the historical climate record , such as the MWP and the LIA?
If so, where’ Leif to shoot it down?
Followed this story a long time ago, and when looking back to recall how these Scientists around Svensmark were treated by the community it must be a perfect day for them now. AGW storytelling will drag on for a whie and then silently disappear.
This could be a nobel prize, i would shoot for physics.
Rgds from Germany
Matt
Who would want a Nobel prize…..Gore and Obama have one, they have been tainted and ruined. Remember the risk of not acting is greater than the risk of acting. I heard that again today, is it a broken record? The world is in chaos, just wait until the temp. drops the next 30 years. It’s going to get really ugly.
The most wonderful aspect of this was reading about an experiment, I didn’t detect the word ‘model’ once.
Wait. How did the climate science overlords let this paper get published??
MinB says:
The most wonderful aspect of this was reading about an experiment, I didn’t detect the word ‘model’ once.
All data is model-dependent. All of it.
Or I should say, the experimental results trumped the theoretical
models.
Also, Minb, let me direct your attention to the 11 uses of the word “simulation” in the paper, as in
“The red curve is a typical result of a numerical simulation of the experimental situation using a standard numerical aerosol model.”
They are directly comparing their results to model predictions.
Sedron L:
At September 4, 2013 at 10:11 am you say
It seems you have been spending too much time on the wrong parts of the web.
38-24-34 is not the only kind of data.
Richard
Reblogged this on The Next Grand Minimum and commented:
The connections between the Sun, Cosmic Rays and the cold climate associated with grand minimums is becoming much clearer.
Shouldn’t this be the new sticky post?
Sedron L:
Your post at September 4, 2013 at 10:15 am says in total
Allow me to rephrase that for clarity.
Comparison of the experimental results with model predictions indicates the models are wrong.
Richard
I love to see new science confirming innovative theory.
Now that the mechanism has been demonstrated it should be straightforward to show it taking place in the atmosphere. Because the reaction rate is so high it will also be relatively easy to catch the molecular transformation sequence in snapshots.
Did CERN already know this but not report it, instead asking for 5 more years before drawing conclusions?
Hang in Svensmark, recognition is coming for this remarkable advancement in the understanding of cloud formation.
Sedron L says:
September 4, 2013 at 10:11 am
No,–let me correct you, Sedron:
“All models are data-dependent (unless the modeler doesn’t like the results, then he is free to cogitate, speculate, and agitate until he fulfills his nefarious ideologically-driven agenda).”
You just had it backwards (and if you’re a “climate scientists” you don’t see the need for much data anyways)!
Nirvana must be great!
You don’t really believe you can generate “data” from models, do you?
Josh : Time to update your cartoon of the other day with yet another knob!
The paper has this to say “It is proposed that an ion-mechanism exists which provides a second significant pathway for making additional H2SO4, as a possible explanation of the present experimental findings”. They injected sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the chamber and managed to convert some of that [using UV-lamps] to sulfuric acid (H2SO4) and found that adding ions to the mix made that process more efficient. This does not seem to be much of a confirmation of a correlation that has not held up over time in the first place.
@Svensmark
You used electropolished stainless steel in the container. Did you do this to eliminate metal cluster contribution? Where is the control showing the container doesn’t contribute material to aerosol formation? How did you clean the chamber prior to the experiments so that adsorbed chemicals weren’t contributing? Can there be a contribution from your PTFE membrane?
Anthony says (h/t to “me” in WUWT Tips and Notes)…
A guy shouldn’t have to tip his own hat to himself! I offer a generous hat-tip, thanks! I’ve long held that Svensmark was onto something, this is very good to learn about.
However, the CAGW crowd will now say, “OK, Svensmark is right, but when the sun picks up activity again, it will deflect cosmic radiation & the planet will grow hotter and hotter!” Count on it.
REPLY: that wasn’t me putting a tip comment in my own tip thread, that’s how the person signed the tip comment – Anthony
Sedron L says:
September 4, 2013 at 10:15 am
They are directly comparing their results to model predictions.
###
OH NOES, they are doing SCIENCE!
Dude, you need to learn how science works before making silly comment.
1. Make some observations.
2. Concoct a theory (model, e.g. G*m1*m2/r^2)
3. Collect data.
4. COMPARE data with MODEL.
5. Adjust model.
6 Rinse repeat.
Anthony, I am so glad to hear you say Magnetic Field is a whole different animal because it is, and do not forget the geo magnetic field also has to be taken into consideration. This can compound solar magnetic changes.
The ap index is the index we should be watching the most in my opinion going foward.
Comparison of the experimental results with model predictions indicates the models are wrong.
Svensmark et al are using model predictions to validate (or invalidate) their experimental findings.
Here comes Leif to the rescue.