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:
This isn’t Nobel prize territory yet. This experiment is at the “that’s odd” stage. They found an unexpected situation which behaves differently than current understanding. Someone has to figure out what is causing this behavior. Maybe the explanation of that will be significant, or maybe it will be an “of course a hot air balloon rises” explanation.
Reblogged this on Tallbloke's Talkshop and commented:
Great news: More confirmation of Svensmark’s theory
Gail Combs says:
September 4, 2013 at 12:02 pm
It made it through Peer Review without being censored.
Because it is not really about the climate, but about how to convert sulfur dioxide and water vapor to sulfuric acid in their reaction chamber.
“Svensmark et al are using model predictions to validate (or invalidate) their experimental findings.”
Backwards it have you.
Congratulations Henrik.
Steven Mosher says:
Maybe not, a peer reviewed paper says otherwise:
Forbush decreases – clouds relation in the neutron monitor era
http://www.astrophys-space-sci-trans.net/7/315/2011/astra-7-315-2011.html
Dragić, A., Aničin, I., Banjanac, R., Udovičić, V., Joković, D., Maletić, D., and Puzović, J.: Forbush decreases – clouds relation in the neutron monitor era, Astrophys. Space Sci. Trans., 7, 315-318, doi:10.5194/astra-7-315-2011, 2011.
Rob Crawford says at September 4, 2013 at 12:12 pm
Well things put you.
” 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,”
I’ll see your simulation.and raise you an experiment! It’s time for the IPCC to fold but I’m pretty sure they try to bluff. Their tell is so obvious that I’m going all in.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 4, 2013 at 12:07 pm
It made it through Peer Review without being censored.
Because it is not really about the climate, but about how to convert sulfur dioxide and water vapor to sulfuric acid in their reaction chamber.
Leif, I think you may be wrong. Do you remember all of the pre-press release admonitions about the CERN confirmatory paper a couple of years ago. They were clearly concerned the results would add ammunition to the skeptics.
I advocate caution, as Mosher points out, lab and real world results are not necessarily the same.
What this DOES do – is start to concentrate folks minds back on to the solar/extraterrestrial geomag/cosmic ray/gamma ray, etc type areas where we simply do not have enough information and understanding to ‘diss’ solar variation as a potential primary or secondary cause of earth climate changes.
As others note, many earth scientists, including myself, do not doubt that there are external influences on the earths climate – AND, for avoidance of doubt – these external influences MUST be significant (otherwise how does one explain cyclic Ice ages, for example!). Now, AFAIK, no-one has come up with demonstrable theories to explain all these possible external causes and effects. Svensmarks work is a simply a step towards such understanding.
As for the AGW – its mostly CO2 caused, ‘theory’ – it was already dead in the water. I just hope that some of the CO2 carbon derived warming ‘hype’ is now reassessed and ADMITTED as likely grossly over-exaggerated.
The likes of Hansen, Mann, etc – all need to start their climb downs real soon…….or they will simply look more and more foolish (if that’s possible?)
I am having trouble understanding this “experiment” thingy – can anyone explain how this relates to the real world of mathematical modelling? /sarc
Sorry all – I am not really shouting my surname – I have enough trouble with it without drawing attention to it.
Y’know, there may be a really easy way to confirm the hypothesis here folks… Maybe that would stop some of the arguments between Leif, Mosher, Salvatore, and Vuk…. although they are entertaining to watch.
At any rate, my proposal is this:
If we do have a big reduction in solar activity over the next 2 or 3 solar cycles, why don’t we take detailed measurements of cosmic radiation, cloud cover (at varying latitudes and altitudes), and temperature over the next 30 years or so, and then it should be pretty darn easy to confirm or refute this hypothesis.
Claiming it has been confirmed yet is premature, and claiming it has been refuted already seems to be based on studies with insufficient data to actually confirm or deny anything.
So, let’s do some real science and maybe actually measure these things over the next 10, 20, or 30 years or so in the “real world” and see what the actual data tell us. Novel idea to be sure.
Sedron L says:
September 4, 2013 at 11:00 am
Dick Courtney: please read your Paul Feyerabend.
The problem with Feyerabend and similar “philosophers” is that their arguments are often used to justify “scientific” conclusions that are contra-reality merely because the investigator thinks his or her ideas have merit because they emerged spontaneously from their very own fuzzy little heads. It is bad enough when research is bent simply to maintain grant status; when sincerity displaces honesty, the infernal highway is funded for paving work.
Besides, read Francis Bacon and you will discover that the issue of theory interacting with results was a concern even in the 16th century. That was the reason Bacon advanced the scientific method to begin with. He argues that since a scientist cannot be objective, therefor he (well her as well) has to rely on the experiment to actually inform about nature. He did not anticipate Trenberth for instance asserting that the data must be wrong, since it didn’t match the model expectations. Trenberth is exhibiting Feyerabend-like sincerity as opposed to Baconian emphasis on experiment.
@Gail Combs,
Many thanks for finding that rebuttal to Mosher’s very reasonable sounding objection. I hope he responds.
Anthony, You were kind to post a note with my post. Let me clarify it for you. You don’t have to qualify yourself on your own blog. Your character far surpasses mine. I know the work you put in to this site and the expense. It takes a huge toll on your mind body spirit and wallet. I extend my gratitude to you for maintaining a site that is needed more than money can compensate.
I am going to send you a contribution to that effect and for my being a smart ass. Keep up the unsurpassed effort.
My interest is in the weather and because of that l have real doubts that just on its own this idea would have any real impact on changes to the cloud cover.
But if it were linked along with changes to the jet stream as well, then yes this idea would have legs.
Gail Combs says:
September 4, 2013 at 12:02 pm
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.
++++++++++
Good questions Gail: But let us not forget that what stirs many skeptics into action. It is a natural survival instinct for those of us who don’t want to be bullied. I am especially skeptical when someone intends to scare the people who can forcibly take my money. That is also in part what differentiates (not in the calculus sense) conservatives from liberals. I digress.
Congratulations to Svensmark and his team. He took a lot of flak over the years but he should have a nice big smile on his face and a glass of champagne in his hand.
Gail: I read more carefully: I AM SORRY I should have addressed Tom in FLorida, the person you were addressing in my above. I don’t know where my head was!
Bob says:
September 4, 2013 at 12:22 pm
“Leif, I think you may be wrong. Do you remember all of the pre-press release admonitions about the CERN confirmatory paper a couple of years ago. They were clearly concerned the results would add ammunition to the skeptics.”
GLOBE international controls all established parties in all EU protectorates and needs the CO2AGW theory hoax as an excuse to justify food-to-fuel policies.
And they control science funding in the EU.
If you want to do science in the EU you play by the rules of GLOBE international or you don’t play.
@Leif Svalgaard;
OK, you convinced me a long time ago that the correlation on this matter doesn’t exist. But if this experiment holds up, doesn’t it raise the question as to why the correlation doesn’t exist?
I ask this in the same vein as CO2. We know what the physical properties are in isolation in the lab. What we don’t seem to know is why these don’t exhibit themselves as expected in the earth system as a whole. The answer most likely lies with our lack of understanding regarding totality of all feed backs + changes due to factors unrelated to CO2. Does this not raise the need for a similar discussion? Or is there something else I have missed?
Sedron L, interpretation is model-dependent. Magnitudes and effects are not. E.g., ionizing cosmic rays would produce atmospheric nano-droplets (or not) independently of anyone’s model about them.
Steven Mosher says:
September 4, 2013 at 11:27 am
————————————————
Quite right, however that is not limited to Svensmark’s hypothesis. There are many others that are having an issues with the “real world”, including one very high profile hypothesis.
richardscourtney says:
September 4, 2013 at 11:06 am
Richard,
Beautifully and succinctly stated.
MtK