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:
At September 7, 2013 at 1:13 pm you say
Your magnanimity and fortitude have been astounding. I am in awe.
Richard
From wobble on September 7, 2013 at 9:50 am:
And that settles it.
There is no perfect knowledge, the best we can hope for is the best current understanding.
Even when we have apparent perfection, we realize it is a defined perfection apart from reality. 1+1=2 perfectly, exactly. Does 1 sq meter of water plus 1 sq meter of solid salt yield exactly 2 sq meters of volume? Does 1 sq meter of 1°C water plus 1 sq meter of 99°C water yield 2 sq meters of water perfectly?
Thus we should automatically know, from car mechanics to financial advisors to scientists, anyone saying they understand an issue perfectly really shouldn’t be trusted as they’ve claimed the impossible, we should seek expertise elsewhere.
September 5, 2013 at 2:49 pm
1) is your position that if you were a peer reviewer of this (or perhaps his other published papers) then you would have strongly recommended to the journal editor against accepting it as is?
No, as the paper is only about converting H2O and SO2 to H2SO4
—
I’m thinking they’re missing the boat on this whole GCR/ACR .. thingy.
Our local interstellar cloud has varying densities for H, He, Ne, O etc etc..
Neutrals can be accelerated to ACR intensity levels. The underestimated ACR.
If a H neutral accelerated to CR intensity sprays the atmosphere it would not say have the same spray effect as a Ne neutral accelerated to CR intensity. Coincidently, alittle extra Ne shows up around the same time as the beginnings of the solar polar magnetic slow down and on Earth more noctilucent clouds are observed.
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/619803main_c4-stilll-composition.jpg
But the question for the day .. He and Ne how are they the same/different? What kind of ionization properties does Ne have? Luminosity? If there is more Ne in the solar halo now……….
Lots of good links left in this thread.
I did think Shaviv’s theory had holes..nearby supernova, winds rotational properties, neutrals, etc..
Argon arrghhh I should have used ARGON in the last post.
The Fractional Ionization of the Warm Neutral Interstellar
Medium
Edward B. Jenkins
Princeton University Observatory
Jan 2013
ABSTRACT
When the neutral interstellar medium is exposed to EUV and soft X-ray radiation, the argon
atoms in it are far more susceptible to being ionized than the hydrogen atoms….
<blockquote<kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
Your comment is a joke.
It’s possible to understand issues and topics perfectly because that includes understanding the remaining unknowns and the controversies.
But your comment is incredibly germane to the definitiveness of Lief’s comments, yet you chose to ignore that.
You model is utilizing the laws of physics, but it’s still a model. And I’m sure you can predict the temperature of a steak with 0.7 degrees.
You’re only teaching misstatements and overconfidence.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 6, 2013 at 1:43 pm
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.
——————————————————————————————————————————-
Now that is a classic reply/comment, and funny!
Dr. Leif Svalgaard has asserted that the equation in the paper at http://climatechange90.blogspot.com/2013/05/natural-climate-change-has-been.html “…is a fake using circular arguments and invalid ‘physics’.”
It is easily demonstrated that none of this is true.
Perhaps Dr. S. is unaware that the equation does a credible job of calculating average global temperature trends all the way back to the beginning of the regular recording of sunspots in 1610. A graph that is qualitatively similar (different scale factor) is shown at http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/01/blog-post_23.html The downtrend of the Little Ice Age and uptrend that precipitated the AGW mistake are apparent. Anyone so-motivated can access the sunspot data and verify the equation themselves.
Once reasonably accurate world wide temperature measurements became available in approximately 1895, global temperature oscillations, above and below the trend calculated by the sunspot number time-integral, are observed. Since land does not mix, these oscillations must be caused by the net average of the several named and unnamed ocean oscillations. Incorporation of a simple approximation of net, overall average oscillations allows calculation of average global temperature anomalies with R2 = 0.9.
The equation provides a second means of verification using more recent measurements. The coefficients can be determined at any prior year using data up to that year and adjusting the coefficients to maximize R2. The equation, thus calibrated is then used to calculate the current trend of actual measurements. For example, using the equation for no CO2 effect (including CO2 effect has insignificant effect on R2), the prediction of the temperature anomaly trend in 2012 using the equation calibrated using data through 2005 (actual sunspot numbers through 2012) is 0.3888 K. When calibrated using data through 2012 the calculated value is 0.3967 K; a difference of only 0.008 K.
In the real world, it does not matter if your peers agree. In the real world it either works or not. Engineers do not argue with what works. The equation works.
The assessment that the equation is fake may actually reveal isolation from the real world.
Willis Eschenbach says:
“His “entire forecasts” are very difficult to audit, because he doesn’t publish them. Or to be more precise, he publishes only the successful parts of them.”
You can go to the comments section of his website and make up any old story about what the weather did, and as long as it agrees with his forecast, he will use it as verification.
FYI
A review of the relevance of the ‘CLOUD’ results and other recent observations to the possible effect of cosmic rays on the terrestrial climate
Anatoly Erlykin, Terry Sloan, Arnold Wolfendale
(Submitted on 23 Aug 2013)
The problem of the contribution of cosmic rays to climate change is a continuing one and one of importance. In principle, at least, the recent results from the CLOUD project at CERN provide information about the role of ionizing particles in ‘sensitizing’ atmospheric aerosols which might, later, give rise to cloud droplets. Our analysis shows that, although important in cloud physics the results do not lead to the conclusion that cosmic rays affect atmospheric clouds significantly, at least if H2SO4 is the dominant source of aerosols in the atmosphere. An analysis of the very recent studies of stratospheric aerosol changes following a giant solar energetic particles event shows a similar negligible effect. Recent measurements of the cosmic ray intensity show that a former decrease with time has been reversed. Thus, even if cosmic rays enhanced cloud production, there will be a small global cooling, not warming.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.5067v1