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.
DesertYote: They are directly comparing their results to model calculations. This is from the caption for Figure 3:
“Blue circles are the experimental results averaged over five runs. The red curve is a typical result of a numerical simulation of the experimental situation using a standard numerical aerosol model. Notice that the expected response from the modeling decreases strongly with particle diameter in contrast with the experimental results. A much better agreement is seen with a numerical simulation in the black curve, where the concentration of sulfuric acid is
held constant.”
There is no doubt that AR5 will be obsolete when it is published; the problem will be getting MSM and the politicians to say so.
A formalized mechanism using both Solar magnetic fields and High energy UV. Finally, the Sun does something and it doesn’t involve TSI.
Sedron L:
re your silly reply to me at September 4, 2013 at 10:34 am.
Please see the post by DesertYote at September 4, 2013 at 10:34 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/04/svensmarks-cosmic-ray-theory-of-clouds-and-global-warming-looks-to-be-confirmed/#comment-1407737
It explains your misunderstasnding of the scientific method.
Richard
oldseadog says:
There is no doubt that AR5 will be obsolete when it is published; the problem will be getting MSM and the politicians to say so.
This simply isn’t true, and this paper doens’t make it true. There still remains a lot to be proven before this hypothesis explains (any of) modern climate change, including whether the radiative impact of clouds can account for observed climate variations (many, like Andrew Dessler, think they do not), whether the the cloud feedback is net positive or net negative, and whether there is an underlying trend in cosmic rays of sufficient magnitude to explain post-1975 warming.
And, even *if* Svensmark et al is true, CO2 is still a greenhouse gas, whose effects are seen throughout paleoclimate and whose radiative properties are probably the *best* known part of climate science (both theoretically and observationally).
I think there are many climate scientists who could take a leaf out of Professor Svensmark’s work 🙂 Pun intended.
Stephen Wilde says:
September 4, 2013 at 9:44 am
Interesting but still doesn’t explain the circulation changes between zonal and meridional jets with varying degrees of atmospheric ‘blocking’.
——————————————
The hypothesis could explain such changes, due to variation in increased cloud cover. Also helps explain why models work so poorly for the Cretaceous (even worse than for now), because of ocean-derived CCN numbers, not necessarily the solar magnetic flux aspect of the study.
The field of solar /climate relationships is where the field of climatalogy is heading ,and more and more connections are starting to come to light as studies in this field keep making advances.
The case for a more meridional atmospheric circulation /solar connection being pretty conclusive ,through observation and experimentation.
The ap index /geological connection is another area where advances are being made.
If one were to plot all major volcanic eruptions /major earthquakes going back to 1600ad one will find a significant correlation between the times around sunspot minimums and an increase in this kind of activity. Correlations north of 80%, to much for coincidence in my opinion.
Eric Ellison says:
September 4, 2013 at 10:30 am
Josh : Time to update your cartoon of the other day with yet another knob!
——————————-
He had a number of panels on the sun side of the cube. One could be for radiation & another for magnetic flux.
TSI is but a vey small part of the solar climate relationship, although it plays a part.
I would say the TSI /ocean heat content connection is significant.
JimS says:
“So let me get this straight: reduced solar radiation, means more cosmic radiation, which means more clouds? If so, then this would be a double whammy negative feedback system? I apologize for the non-scientific terminology used.”
Yeah, you don’t sound too bright with ‘double whammy’, so instead of apologising, how about not using silly language in the first place?
It would not be a double negative feedback system anyway. There is NO feedback of either polarity happening here. The amount of cloud on Earth affects neither the solar output , nor the cosmic ray flux.
However, the two effects would be acting in the same sense, with less solar activity also increasing the amount of cloud cover.
Argh. What rubbish is this again.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
Cause and effect, remember? Same as that warming causes more CO2. (prof Carter)
As the temperature differential between the poles and equator grows larger due to the cooling from the top, very likely something will also change on earth. Predictably, there would be a small (?) shift of cloud formation and precipitation, more towards the equator, on average. At the equator insolation is 684 W/m2 whereas on average it is 342 W/m2. So, if there are more clouds in and around the equator, this will amplify the cooling effect due to less direct natural insolation of earth (clouds deflect a lot of radiation). Furthermore, in a cooling world there is more likely less moisture in the air, but even assuming equal amounts of water vapour available in the air, a lesser amount of clouds and precipitation will be available for spreading to higher latitudes. So, a natural consequence of global cooling is that at the higher latitudes it will become both cooler and drier.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 4, 2013 at 10:49 am
If one were to plot all major volcanic eruptions /major earthquakes going back to 1600 ad one will find a significant correlation between the times around sunspot minimums and an increase in this kind of activity
So you suggest that no solar activity whatsoever generates major earthquakes.
What I have come across is just about all climate scientist that are not involved in the man made global warming agenda are pretty much of the opinion that solar rules the climate both through primary and secondary effects.
Maunder Minimum and the more recent Dalton Minimum support this train of thought quite well.
Sedron L says:
September 4, 2013 at 10:45 am
And, even *if* Svensmark et al is true, CO2 is still a greenhouse gas, whose effects are seen throughout paleoclimate and whose radiative properties are probably the *best* known part of climate science (both theoretically and observationally).
———————————–
CO2 concentration is seen throughout paleoclimate to be negligible & primarily an effect rather than a cause of climate change. The radiative properties of water vapor are at least as well known, without the complication of the little understood affect of various carbon sinks on the effect of CO2 on climate.
It is indeed a greenhouse gas, but the effect of adding more of it beyond a very low level is trivial, with possible exception of when it gets extremely high in the absence of much O2, as in the Pre-Cambrian.
CACA is utter, total & complete garbage (& its models GIGO), & was known as such prima facie by real scientists as soon as the scam got started, but was perpetrated by fraudsters with knowledge & malice aforethought. Earth is homeostatic, as the paleoclimate record so abundantly demonstrates.
There is a recent study on this I wil try to send it.
Dick Courtney: please read your Paul Feyerabend.
JimS says:
September 4, 2013 at 9:38 am
So let me get this straight: reduced solar radiation, means more cosmic radiation, which means more clouds? If so, then this would be a double whammy negative feedback system? I apologize for the non-scientific terminology used.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Actually the connection is less Solar Wind and weaker solar magnetic field.
NASA: Solar Wind Loses Power, Hits 50-year Low
PS: And low H2O in the air, as during the dry atmospheres of Snowball Earth.
[PDF]
Av Monthly EUV .1-50 nm Flux Emissions – International Actuarial …
http://www.actuaries.org/HongKong2012/Papers/WBR9_Walker.pdf
You +1’d this publicly. Undo
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – Quick View
seem promising, but before getting excited, let’s see the discussion pro and con, back and forth. We’ve only seen one side. See if it withstands criticism and further experimentation.
Sedron L:
Your entire post at September 4, 2013 at 10:45 am says
Sedron L, I am writing this with complete sincerity. If I could tell you this privately then I would, but I can’t so I write it here.
I recognise your pain: I really do. And you have my sympathy.
Yes, CO2 is a GHG and its logarithmically declining effect with increasing concentration is known and understood. Nobody is attacking that article of your faith.
But nature (e.g. the ‘pause’) and science (e.g. greater understanding of ENSO) is refuting your belief in discernible AGW. This is painful for you because loss of a faith always is painful. I understand that.
The work of Svensmark may be another refutation of your belief, and that hurts. I understand that, too. So you are flailing about here in attempt to push away what is hurting you. Many would do the same.
Your faith is not what makes you important: you are what makes your faith important. Know there are people who care about you. And they will still care when you recognise your faith was misplaced.
So, try to relax. Truth will out whatever you choose to believe. And replace your mistaken belief in AGW with a faith which will give you comfort and aid your happiness.
Richard
Salvatore Del Prete says:
What I have come across is just about all climate scientist that are not involved in the man made global warming agenda are pretty much of the opinion that solar rules the climate both through primary and secondary effects.
Except for claiming there is no warming, what other choice is there?
page 47 of the latest solar /climate connection research I just sent talks about muons and the solar /volcanic relationships which are currently under study.
This paper is a MUST for anyone interested in the latest findings on solar/climate relationships.