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:
Sedron L says:
September 4, 2013 at 10:37 am
###
I’ve talked to Moonies less dense then you.
Thanks Gail (and others) for pointing out the flaw in the “Forbush events refute this” argument. I am constantly disappointed with people trying to refute Svensmark using – what are essentially – proxies instead of looking at the experimental data being developed.
Yes, we are still a long way from linking solar activity to global temperatures, but this is a significant postulated mechanism for how the correlation between solar activity and earth temperature could occur. Arguing that the theory is wrong because the correlation is not perfect or that Forbush events are not seen in monthly (or weekly) cloud cover is not valid because you are not addressing the theory.
Quite simply, this is a testable hypothesis which has not been refuted on the link between GCR and cloud nuclei. The upstream link (high solar activity shielding the earth from GCR) seems to be accepted, but there is equivocation over the downstream link between the cloud nucleii and actual clouds. This one will be hard as I doubt we will be able to create a big enough SKY3 to get results on the kind of scale needed to perform experiments, so we will have to rely on better cloud data and accept the vagaries of observational vs experimental science.
Over-interpreting the theory as “the answer refuting AGW” is just as wrong as refuting it based on poor proxies. I am not ready to beatify Svensmark yet (and apart from one or two comments, few people are on this thread), but credit has to be given where it is due: he has developed a testable hypothesis and been prepared to test it properly – though well-designed experiments. Kudos.
Bob says:
September 4, 2013 at 12:22 pm
“about how to convert sulfur dioxide and water vapor to sulfuric acid in their reaction chamber.”
Leif, I think you may be wrong.
Read they paper. Its conclusion is “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”
davidmhoffer says:
September 4, 2013 at 12:49 pm
Does this not raise the need for a similar discussion?
Discussions are always good and needed, but should not degenerate into worship by the faithful, seeking solace from evil CAWG.
I am seeing some confirmation bias in this thread. This experimental result is a possible piece of the puzzle, but it is easy to get excited about something that confirms one’s own prejudices.
A healthy skepticism is the hallmark of a true Scientist. Being an Advocate is not doing science, it is being political. I am not referring to any attempts to defend or discredit Svensmark’s findings, but rather my remarks are directed to those who seem to take this one set of experimental laboratory results and assume that they validate the Cosmic Ray/Atmospheric Clouds/Temperature Modulation Theory – and then take it personally when others argue for a different interpretation.
And another thing: It is very obvious that (among others) Steven Mosher and Dr. Svalgaard irritate some of the commenters here with their skeptical attitudes – heck it annoys me sometimes, but being skeptical is what a real scientist does. He (she) does everything they can think of to disprove their own hypothesis, and THEN they ask other scientists to try their best to prove them wrong. In other words, a true scientist, a good scientist is even skeptical about their own work. Note that, in my opinion, some of you would do well to emulate Gail Combs or Richard Courtney (there are many others as well) in their demeanor in this forum. In general, when they disagree with a poster, they will provide a counter argument, and links to sources to back up their argument. They will not whine and make personal remarks about those they disagree with.
Since I am not a scientist, I come here to the WUWT comment section to learn directly from the scientists and others who are willing to share their knowledge. While this thread isn’t quite the worst I have seen here at WUWT, I do resent those who derail comment threads by engaging in off-topic rants and childish behavior. Grow up or go somewhere else.
Rob Potter says:
September 4, 2013 at 1:04 pm
The upstream link (high solar activity shielding the earth from GCR) seems to be accepted
Because there is both a good correlation and a good theory explaining it.
but there is equivocation over the downstream link between the cloud nucleii and actual clouds.
Because the correlation is not there and that therefore no theory is needed.
if cosmic rays were key…then there should be a 11 year cycle…following the solar cycle…no evidence for that
I always had faith in Henrik ‘s work, and now to have this confirmed even to a greater degree is just wonderful news.
More solar /climate relationships will be confirmed as we advance through this decade and we get to see first hand prolonged solar minimum conditions and the effects it has on the climate.
In with the new(solar/climate connection) ,out wth the old (agw hoax) ridiculous CO2 /global warming non existent connection.
Sedron L: “Feyerabend.”
Figures.
Feyerabend was wrong, Sidron. Even he admitted that he didn’t understand the consistent success of science, in light of his own analysis that such success should not happen. The discordance between the expectations stemming from his own analysis and the undoubted success of science amounts to a thorough disproof of his case.
Neither you nor Feyerabend allow the interplay of theory and result. The content of results is independent of theory. Only interpretation is theory-bound. When interpretation is proven wrong by by the non-concordance of theory-based prediction and subsequent results, theory is changed or discarded or reconstructed. Sometimes radically. Always independently of human preference.
This empirical winnowing forever removes theory from dependence on subjective content. Freedom from subjectivity has been central to science since Galileo. It’s time you caught up. Too late for Feyerabend.
You’re also wrong about CO2 by the way. Radiation physics says nothing about how any increased energetic content is partitioned by, and into, the climate system. It may not show up as sensible heat at all. F. Moeller made this point in 1963, in a debate with Gilbert Plass. It’s still true today. Climate physics has not advanced to the point where the small perturbation of increased GHGs can be resolved from background processes. It seems apparent that hubris has caused AGW-driven climate scientists to ignore this truth.
Interesting that they cite Ultraviolet radiation as a factor. Wasn’t there a paper posted at WUWT a month or so ago that showed a very high correlation between the ‘ozone holes’ and temperatures? I seem to recall it.
Well there is more to the Svensmark theory, than just the numbers of solar particles and cosmic rays. The interration between the reversals of solar magnetism, and non-reversals of the earth’s magnetism, should result in different steering of arriving charged particles, which tend to spiral around the magnetic field lines. This can alter the distribution of charged particle flux, between tropical regions, where plenty of atmospheric moisture can be found, and more polar regions, where there is less water vapor to condense.
Of course, such conjectures are subject to proper study of the magnitude of these effects. If it is just a butterfly’s wing effect; who cares; but maybe it could have an observable effect.
I’m still open to the idea; but would certainly like to know more about the amplitude of such variations. I am quite sold on the idea, that cloud modulation negative feedback is pretty much in total control of earth’s climate, as far as mean Temperature regulation. The CO2 mechanism, though real, is pretty much a non starter as far as I am concerned; particularly since the reality constantly fails to follow the computer models.
So when will we see cooling from the quiet sun of the past few years?
There is going to be no correlation over an 11 year period, it takes years of a prolonged solar minimum to get any solar/climate correlation. Further the degree nf magnitude change and duration of time have to reach certain levels, levels that never get reached during the so called 11 year sunspot cycle.
That is where so many get tripped up.
In addition earth’s magnetic field has a say in how many cosmic rays will enter our atmosphere along with the amounts of galatic cosmic rays in our neighborhod of the galaxy.
Ultraviolet and ozone connection transfers to the atmospheric circulation connection. At times of low solar actiivty (sustained) the ozone distribution is such that the polar regions of the stratosphere warm relative to the lower latitudes of the stratosphere giving rise to a more meridional atmospheric circulation and hence more clouds, snow cover and precipitatoin and hence colder N.H. temperatures.
Again this is not going to happen over the course of the so called 11 year sunspot cycle, which serves to keep solar /climate correlations low and the climate constant.
I hope all commenters will take the time to view the 52-minute documentary. This was beautifully done, professionally scripted, and quite inspiring. Excellent explanations, considerable careful coverage and comments from Nir Shaviv and Jan Veizer, etc.
OK, Leif, I can already hear (and agree with) your comment that the other side of the story was not covered adequately. And as long as the mechanism for growth to CN size still eludes us, the hypothesis will not become a theory. However, the way ahead has been marked out.
Many thanks to you, Anthony, for posting the documentary.
Svensmark’s hypothesis being put to test in a chamber designed to generate condensation nuclei large enough for water vapor formation is even more compelling when one understands that clouds (other than ground fog) form due to warmer moist air rising into cooler air aloft, resulting in an increase differential between the warmer moist air rising and the air it is rising in.
I bought into the theory when he first published it. It makes logical sense.
In this post I read the word (and variations thereof) ‘experiment’ 12 times. Next time you see a Warmist paper see how many times you can count the word ‘experiment’. If you do see the word ‘experiment’.
Spatial & temporal variability of summer rainfall over Ethiopia from observations & a regional climate model experiment do take a look out for the word just before it. 😉
Dan Murphy says at September 4, 2013 at 1:06 pm …
Good point. I’m as guilty as anyone on this thread.
But I still think the work should lead to a Nobel Prize sooner rather than later. All science is wrong eventually but Svensmark has swum against the flow and found things (by experiment and in accordance with theory) that no-one else has.
It is hard not to be overly enthusiastic about a pioneer who keeps delivering the goods.
But you are right. “Overly enthusiastic” is unhelpful.
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).
———-
You forgot the the na na ne naa naa
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 the orthodoxy, as CO2 has continued to icrease, temperatures haven’t. Thats the real world. So, basically the models are trying to explain a phenomena that doesnt happen. And if they are able to show it in a computer they have the problem of explaining why nature is getting it wrong outside that computer.
——————————————————————————————————————————-
Very well said, Steve!
This, as a fledgeling hypothesis (only in the orthodoxy would it be “settled” after a mere decade or two), may well go a very long way to explaining that pesky lack of co-operation by nature! So I’m sure that, in the interest of scientific truth, all the orthodox scientists will be rushing to validate and expand on the idea to help iron out the minor wrinkles, no?
A mechanism that increases the condensation nuclei is a mechanism for increased cloud formation. And since Svensmark’s hypothesis has a global affect, it has greater meaningful influence than an aircraft attempting to could seed a local condition.
oops…should read “cloud seed” 🙂
today is wonderful news for those of us who know the solar/climate connection exist.
In reply to:
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 4, 2013 at 11:35 am
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 …
William:
Time to take your head out of the sand. There are cycles of warming and cooling that correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes.The question is not if solar magnetic cycle changes cause cyclic warming and cooling of the planet but rather how.
There is now unequivocal observed cooling at both poles. There is an unexplained significant change to the solar magnetic cycle.
Scientists require imagination and persistence to solve problems. Svensmark is an old fashion meticulous persistent scientist.
Svensmark will be proven correct by abrupt cooling of the earth due to the solar 24 cycle change.
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?
————-
You can replicate the experiment if you so wish. The details are in the paper.