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:
It seems to be fairly widely accepted here that an active sun leads to less clouds and an inactive sun to more clouds.
Leif says that the correlation is not good enough to be meaningful but we haven’t had cloud data for long.
Recent cloud data from the Earthshine project shows that global cloud cover reduced during the recent warming spell and stopped decreasing or may have increased somewhat around 2000 when the warming stopped as well.
We have two options to consider:
i) Svensmark suggests more clouds from simple cloud seeding but gives no guidance as to how that then affects the structure of the atmospheric circulation to achieve the full range of phenomena that we see with latitudinally shifting climate zones, changed jet stream behaviour and changes in atmospheric ‘blocking events.
ii) I suggest that the solar variations directly alter ozone chemistry thus altering the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere and I have described how that could translate into the full range of observed phenomena.
How to test between the two?
We need to know whether the simple cloud seeding process can alter the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere in the way required to achieve the observed phenomena.
I don’t see how it could.
I.P.C.C. AR5 … D.O.A.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 4, 2013 at 1:34 pm
today is wonderful news for those of us who know the solar/climate connection exist.
For the people who know, no proofs or evidence is needed, so why is this ‘wonderful news’?
Stephen Wilde says:
September 4, 2013 at 1:39 pm
It seems to be fairly widely accepted here that an active sun leads to less clouds and an inactive sun to more clouds.
Leif says that the correlation is not good enough to be meaningful but we haven’t had cloud data for long.
In which case there is no basis for something to be ‘widely accepted’.
Stephen Wilde says:
September 4, 2013 at 1:39 pm
Doesn’t have to be either/or.
Small fluctuation in spectral composition of TSI & larger variation in solar magnetic flux could both be involved in climatic cycles.
Cold plasma has been well-hidden. Space physicists have long lacked clues to how much of this electrically charged gas exists tens of thousands of miles above Earth and how the stuff may impact our planet’s interaction with the sun. Now, a new method developed by Swedish researchers makes cold plasma measurable and reveals significantly more cold, charged ions in Earth’s upper altitudes than previously imagined.
At these lofty elevations, storms of high-energy charged particles – space weather – roil the atmosphere, creating auroras , buffeting satellites, and sometimes wreaking havoc with electronic devices and electric grids on Earth. The new evidence of abundant cold (i.e. low-energy) ions may change our understanding of this tumultuous space weather and lead to more accurate forecasting of it, scientists say. The finding might also shed light on what’s happening around other planets and moons – for instance, helping explain why the once robust atmosphere of Mars is so wispy today.
“The more you look for low-energy ions, the more you find,” said Mats André, a professor of space physics at the Swedish Institute of Space Physics in Uppsala, Sweden, and leader of the research team. “We didn’t know how much was out there. It’s more than even I thought.”
ww.irf.se/Topical/Press/?dbfile=Elusive matter found to be abundant far above Earth &dbsec=Administration
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 4, 2013 at 1:25 pm
“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.”
Well that is what I’ve been saying for some time save that I would add the effect of other wavelengths and particles relevant to the ozone creation / destruction process.
But that isn’t the Svensmark hypothesis. It is my alternative to it.
Stephen they worked in conjunction with one another not opposite. A weak sun promotes more clouds through an increase in cosmic rays andUV light/ozone changes promote a more meridional atmospheric circulation. They both contribute, it is not one or the other.
You are taking the wrong approach in trying to say they both can’t occur in response to a quiet sun, when in reality that is exactly what happens.
I have been saying this for years, and Stephen you can add the volcanic /solar relationship to that.
It is much more then what you keep trying to convey.
Are there controls to check that cloud cover changes actually lead temperature changes?
I can see many more inverse points of correlation here with the temperature shifted forward around 8 months:
http://1.2.3.10/bmi/www.climate4you.com/images/HadCRUT3%20and%20TropicalCloudCoverISCCP.gif
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 4, 2013 at 12:07 pm
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.
——————-
So it would only have been censored if it mentioned climate, I see now. Thanks for clearing that up.
milodonharlani says:
September 4, 2013 at 1:49 pm
“Doesn’t have to be either/or.
Small fluctuation in spectral composition of TSI & larger variation in solar magnetic flux could both be involved in climatic cycles.”
I accept a possible effect from the magnetic flux but only if part of the thermal effects in the atmosphere are due to charged particles which the magnetic flux would direct in at the poles along the charge lines. I think the wavelength variations play a greater role and they are not affected by the magnetic field are they?
But that isn’t the Svensmark hypothesis is it?
Stephen Wilde says at September 4, 2013 at 1:39 pm
From a layman’s perspective the question of Willis’s storms as temperature regulators springs to mind.
More clouds will affect how these storms are created. And these storms do move energy and humidity vertically.
But the effect of these movements will vary depending on their latitude. The Jet Stream will carry on regardless but it will be affected by the temperature and humidity of the Tropics.
To an ignoramus like myself this seems like a way that the formation of clouds could alter the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere.
Not that I am endorsing this as anything but idle speculation.
Svensmark is doing something that is all but unique in climate science, namely, conducting experiments. In addition, they are active rather than passive experiments (that is unique in climate science). His work is completely in accord with scientific method.
Svensmark’s hypotheses may prove to be falsified as his experiments advance (another unique mark in climate science). But Svensmark will be the first to present the evidence that falsifies his hypotheses (another unique mark in climate science). Falsification is a step forward in science. Too bad that Alarmists are too proud and too fearful to take that step.
The experiment discussed in this article cannot prove that Svensmark’s major hypothesis is true. But it is a necessary step in a planned serious of active experiments (another unique mark in climate science).
I think that Leif’s criticisms above are directed at the title of the post rather than Svensmark’s experiment.
Svalgaard and Mosher: 5th column.
Stephen Wilde says:
September 4, 2013 at 1:55 pm
I don’t know to what extent spectral composition of TSI covaries with magnetic flux & the sunspot cycle, but I wouldn’t rule it out. Maybe Dr. Svalsgaard can comment.
I forgot to add an important point. If there remain some bozos who are prone to claim that active experimentation in climate science is not possible then look at Svensmark’s work. You do not need a second Earth to do experiments in climate science.
Now you are getting close to understanding climate scientists and their models. Did you see the recent divergence with temps?
davidmhoffer says:
September 4, 2013 at 12:49 pm
Excellent and crucially important point. You are hitting on all cylinders.
Leif’s comments are meaningless to me.
Stephen ,an increase in cosmic rays is one of the many secondary effects associated with a prolonged solar minmimum just as a change in UV light/ ozone distribution, both which create or result in an increase in clouds.
The first process through condensation nuclei ,the other through a more meridional atmospheric circulation. They work together in tandem not opposing.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 4, 2013 at 1:51 pm
“Stephen they worked in conjunction with one another not opposite. A weak sun promotes more clouds through an increase in cosmic rays andUV light/ozone changes promote a more meridional atmospheric circulation. They both contribute, it is not one or the other.”
That isn’t what Svensmark actually says as far as I know. Does he specify how the increased clouds affect the thermal structure of the atmosphere and the degree of jet stream meridionality?
I think the change in cloud quantities is more likely due to changes in the length of the lines of air mass mixing than additional cloud seeding.
I know that cosmic particles will seed clouds in an enclosed space with favourable conditions but the atmosphere is not short of nuclei in the first place.
I suspect that pressure and humidity constraints in an atmosphere open to space limit the amount of cloud that can be formed at any given temperature regardless of the availability of nuclei.
I don’t think we can resolve such issues here.
At 2:45 in the Coleman video (right after the polar bears), we have a cyclone in the Gulf of Mexico that is rotating anti-cyclonically.
Obviously copied from an AlGore video.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 4, 2013 at 11:04 am
[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
The above study shows all of the latest solar/climate relationships. Very informative.
Pat Frank says:
September 4, 2013 at 12:50 pm
Thank You. Now I do not have to say it. Explaining the difference between models and reality is a sysiphean task.
M Courtney said:
“this seems like a way that the formation of clouds could alter the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere.”
Clouds are a consequence of the vertical and horizontal temperature profiles as air masses of different qualities mix and mingle so that one or other of them falls to a temperature below the dew point. Convective clouds can affect local temperature profiles by releasing latent heat of condensation but that is quickly eliminated by enhanced uplift. Most clouds are layer clouds and not convective.
I hope readers realise that I am humbly wary of going too far in presenting an alternative to Svensmark at this juncture. I don’t expect to persuade many here, merely put my thoughts in the public domain for future reference.
Stephen, Svensmark, is only saying that a quiet sun will result in more clouds due to an increase in cosmic rays, he does not get into the dynamics of how the atmosphere might change.
He is simply saying a mechinism which will result in more clouds(in his case cosmic rays) will result in a colder earth, independent of your theory or mine as far as the atmospheric circulation goes.