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.
Richard is exactly correct.
I remember from my A’ Level Physics (or was it O’ level?) The Wilson Cloud Chamber where supersaturated water vapour was condensed into liquid water trails by alpha and beta radiation particles. Presumably in the atmosphere cosmic rays (which are gamma rays and sometimes X-Rays which are both ultra short wave electromagnetic radiation), knock electrons of atoms in the atmosphere which become beta radiation and have the same effect? I sat my A levels 40 years ago so may be a bit rusty, but I believe this is demonstrable science, not the product of computer modelling which shares no basis with reality!
@Greg
I asked a legitimate question, and I am sorry you answered. Your spelling reveals perhaps a Brit behind the name, but I shall not think all Brits have such a condescending attitude.
Look out Anthony, Leif is running his mouth about something other than TSI.
REPLY: It is fine if he wants to question and discuss the science, that’s what this blog is all about. From my perspective though, this is an important roadblock that has been removed in the atmospheric chemistry process. Previously is was shown that cosmic rays produced nuclei clumps, but most were too small to be effective. Now with this experiment showing that the kinds of nuclei cosmic rays produce can grow through an accretion process to reach the 50nm or greater size needed, it opens the pathway forward to documenting the entire cosmic ray to cloud formation process in Earth’s atmosphere. – Anthony
This identification of cosmic rays as a source of condensation nuclei (CN) resolves another conundrum in early climate studies. Originally, it was assumed that most CN were salt or clay particles. The problem was there appeared to be insufficient CN from these sources to account for the amount of cloud.
Research on this came from cloud seeding in the 1970s and 1980s – it was an early form of geo-engineering. The main CN was silver iodide added to a cloud to create rain or to preclude the development of hail storms. Generally it was abandoned because you didn’t know the baseline. How much would it have rained if you didn’t seed? There were also problems of lawsuits over claims of creating flash flooding or “stealing” moisture upwind to cause droughts downwind.
What evidence do we have that the experiments were not rigged to produce the result they wanted to believe?
MikeN says:
September 4, 2013 at 11:18 am
What evidence do we have that the experiments were not rigged to produce the result they wanted to believe?
——————
Svensmark is a real scientist, not a CACA fraud & charlatan.
“Chris4692 says:
September 4, 2013 at 11:05 am
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.”
############
The problem is this.
The hypothesis is More GCR = more clouds = cooling earth.
Svensmark is trying to explain the mechanism more GCR = More clouds.
The problem is that if you look at events like Forbush events, where the amount of GCR changes dramatically, you dont see more clouds. Thats the real world. So, basically he’s trying to explain a phenomena that doesnt happen. And if he is able to show it in a lab he has the problem of explaining why it doesnt actually happen outside the lab.
Ursus Augustus says:
September 4, 2013 at 9:54 am
An interesting speculation is that the cloud albedo effect is non uniform and say more effective over the Pacific and drives the ENSO cycles and hey presto… a powerfull compound mechanism…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Think Vukcevic and the Earth’s magnetic field. Think Ozone and the waning and waxing of ozone holes.
PAPER: Correlation between Cosmic Rays and Ozone Depletion
Discussion of paper @ur momisugly Physics World: Do cosmic rays destroy the ozone layer?
MikeN:
At September 4, 2013 at 11:18 am you ask
Science is about replication. If their experiment were – as you suggest – fr@udulent then that would be discovered as soon as others attempted to replicate the experiment. The experimenters would then lose their reputations, their jobs and their pensions.
So, what evidence do we have that you have as many as two brain cells to rub together?
Richard
Sedron L says:
September 4, 2013 at 10:10 am
Wait. How did the climate science overlords let this paper get published??
You probably haven’t noticed, but since Climate-gate, since the academic community learned how a few climate scientists were running interference to stop papers they didn’t like from getting published, there has indeed been more “skeptical” papers getting published.
That could just be a corrolation… A coincidence.
Interesting none-the-less.
Steven Mosher says:
September 4, 2013 at 11:27 am
So, basically he’s trying to explain a phenomena that doesnt happen.
A sober assessment of the available evidence http://www.leif.org/EOS/swsc120049-Cosmic-Rays-Climate.pdf [see also http://www.leif.org/EOS/Cloud%20Cover%20and%20Cosmic%20Rays.pdf ] concludes “In this paper we have examined the evidence of a CR-cloud relationship from direct and indirect observations of cloud recorded from satellite- and ground-based measurement techniques. Overall, the current satellite cloud datasets do not provide evidence supporting the existence of a solar-cloud link”
“There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in your philosophy”.
Shakespeare must have foreseen the IPCC when he wrote those words.
I suspect there are even more critical unknowns driving earth’s climate. It is a delight when someone adds to our knowledge rather than merely argue that we know it all.
Steven Mosher says: @ur momisugly September 4, 2013 at 11:27 am
…. The problem is that if you look at events like Forbush events, where the amount of GCR changes dramatically, you dont see more clouds. Thats the real world. So, basically he’s trying to explain a phenomena that doesnt happen…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Physicist Nive Shaviv doesn’t agree with you on that.
The comments under the analysis are still open if you want to debate the matter with Shaviv.
Clouds cool, I don’t see where there can be any objection. Dr. Roy has had this theory for several years now. The heating has stopped. Checkmate
The theory on man caused global warming looks about the same as welfare making people stronger or blowing up an Arab nation will bring about peace.
Steven Mosher says:
September 4, 2013 at 11:27 am
The problem is this.
The hypothesis is More GCR = more clouds = cooling earth.
Svensmark is trying to explain the mechanism more GCR = More clouds.
The problem is that if you look at events like Forbush events, where the amount of GCR changes dramatically, you dont see more clouds. Thats the real world. So, basically he’s trying to explain a phenomena that doesnt happen. And if he is able to show it in a lab he has the problem of explaining why it doesnt actually happen outside the lab.
———————————
The effect was found in a 2009 study, not found in 2010 & found again in 2011.
Naturally, you chose to credit the suspect outlier.
In any case, there’s a big difference between a brief event & long-term variation in magnetic flux modulation of cosmic rays, the supply of which isn’t steady, as recognized by the science of cosmoclimatology.
“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”.
So where are all the skeptics who should be shouting loudly that “it is proposed”… “as a possible explanation”? If this was an AGW paper that is exactly what you would all say.
So what do we have? Another step along the path, a good one perhaps, but not the holy grail as some posters seem to want to bestow upon it.
And Salvatore, if you have a personal issue with Dr S take it up somewhere else. I for one am tired of having to read through all your opinionated BS that has little to do with the subject at hand with which you have polluted the last couple of solar threads. State your position, provide us with explanations and links so we can learn something and let the personal stuff go.
Tom in Florida says:
September 4, 2013 at 11:46 am
not the holy grail as some posters seem to want to bestow upon it
When people are grasping for straws, it seems that even the smallest blade can make a difference…
Svensmark et al:
It is less clear if the variations in ionization caused by solar activity can be seen in changes in the CCN production in the real atmosphere. In other words if a 10% change in the ionization could result in an ≈ 1–2% change in CCN concentration, which is of the order expected to have a observable impact on clouds [15]. Since nucleation and growth in the atmosphere vary with temperature, pressure, and concentration of gases, the impact of the observed effect will depend on the specific location in the atmosphere.
There Svensmark has a problem in converting the excellent hypothesis in an unquestionable theory. If CERN experiment has not produced 100% result, with current stagnation and even more so with possible cooling, impact of his research will loose some of the impetus.
We also know that sun maintained its magnetic cycle but lost sunspots during the Maunder minimum when temperatures fell.
Sunspots are the source of the TSI change but not to a degree to explain climate variability.
Sunspots also are the source of les frequent but more violent solar magnetic events resulting in the mass ejection (CMEs) and different type of far more energetic interaction with the Earth’s environment to the one that the Svensmark’s hypothesis is about.
Tom in Florida says:
September 4, 2013 at 11:46 am
This paper is real science, based upon repeatable experiment, with a follow up program of further research to test hypotheses. This is the antithesis of consensus climate “science”, based upon GIGO models.
Steven Hill from Ky (the welfare state) says:
September 4, 2013 at 10:06 am
Who would want a Nobel prize…..Gore and Obama have one…
_________________________________________________________
They don’t have a real one, they have a “Peace Prize” which is a political prize not a scientific prize. As far as I know, the science ones do matter.
DirkH says:
September 4, 2013 at 9:47 am
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.”
Total Insolation does not change significantly. What changes significantly is only the magnetic field. So; “single whammy” – by modulating the albedo of Earth.
+++++++
Hi Dirk: Semantics, but metaphorically, it’s OK to call it a double whammy. I’m not saying anything new here. The theory suggests a negative feedback to a waning sun. Or conversely a positive feedback to a more active sun. When the sun is more active, more of the sun’s energy is allowed to pass through the atmosphere and heat the earth. When the sun is less active, less of it’s energy makes it down through the atmosphere to heat the earth. So two whams in that sense.
Steven Mosher says:
September 4, 2013 at 11:27 am
“The problem is this.
The hypothesis is More GCR = more clouds = cooling earth.
Svensmark is trying to explain the mechanism more GCR = More clouds.
The problem is that if you look at events like Forbush events, where the amount of GCR changes dramatically, you dont see more clouds. Thats the real world. So, basically he’s trying to explain a phenomena that doesnt happen. And if he is able to show it in a lab he has the problem of explaining why it doesnt actually happen outside the lab.”
Nigel Calder responded to that argument on his blog here
http://calderup.wordpress.com/2010/05/03/do-clouds-disappear/
Tom in Florida says: @ur momisugly September 4, 2013 at 11:46 am
…So where are all the skeptics who should be shouting loudly that “it is proposed”… “as a possible explanation”? If this was an AGW paper that is exactly what you would all say.
So what do we have? Another step along the path, a good one perhaps, but not the holy grail as some posters seem to want to bestow upon it…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It made it through Peer Review without being censored. It adds another link to our knowledge of how the climate actually may work. It shoots a few more holes in the idiotic CO2 is the ultimate Control Knob propaganda from the IPCC. AND it is just in time to trip up the next IPCC report. THAT is plenty of reason for celebrating
Many Skeptics, like me take the position of I Don’t Know. We are still in the phase of trying to figure out what unknowns we don’t know. Others have tried to take what we do know and cobble together a possible explanation.
At this stage of climate science anyone who takes the stance of ‘I Know’ is full of it.