There is a new paper in Environmental Research Letters that give additional support to Henrik Svensmark’s cosmic ray hypothesis of climate change on Earth. The idea is basically this: the suns changing magnetic field has an influence on galactic cosmic rays, with a stronger magnetic field deflecting more cosmic rays and a weaker one allowing more into the solar system. The cosmic rays affect cloud formation on Earth by creating condensation nuclei. Here is a simplified block flowchart diagram of the process:
The authors of the the new paper have a similar but more detailed flowchart:
The new paper suggest that changes in the quantity of cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) are caused by changes in the cosmic ray flux:
The impact of solar variations on particle formation and cloud condensation nuclei (CCN), a critical step for one of the possible solar indirect climate forcing pathways, is studied here with a global aerosol model optimized for simulating detailed particle formation and growth processes. The effect of temperature change in enhancing the solar cycle CCN signal is investigated for the first time. Our global simulations indicate that a decrease in ionization rate associated with galactic cosmic ray flux change from solar minimum to solar maximum reduces annual mean nucleation rates, number concentration of condensation nuclei larger than 10 nm (CN10), and number concentrations of CCN at water supersaturation ratio of 0.8% (CCN0.8) and 0.2% (CCN0.2) in the lower troposphere by 6.8%, 1.36%, 0.74%, and 0.43%, respectively. The inclusion of 0.2C temperature increase enhances the CCN solar cycle signals by around 50%. The annual mean solar cycle CCN signals have large spatial and seasonal variations: (1) stronger in the lower troposphere where warm clouds are formed, (2) about 50% larger in the northern hemisphere than in the southern hemisphere, and (3) about a factor of two larger during the corresponding hemispheric summer seasons. The effect of solar cycle perturbation on CCN0.2 based on present study is generally higher than those reported in several previous studies, up to around one order of magnitude.
The wider variation in CCNs makes the Svenmark’s hypothesis more plausible since the effect on clouds would also be proportionately larger.
They conclude:
The measured 0.1% level of the longterm TSI variations on Earth’s climate (i.e., solar direct climatic effect) is too small to account for the apparent correlation between observed historical solar variations and climate changes, and several mechanisms amplifying the solar variation impacts have been proposed in the literature.
Here we seek to assess how much solar variation may affect CCN abundance through the impacts of GCR and temperature changes on new particle formation, using a global aerosol model (GEOSChem/APM) optimized for simulating detailed particle formation and growth processes. Based on the GEOSChem/ APM simulations, a decrease in ionization rate associated with GCR flux change from solar minimum to solar maximum reduces global mean nucleation rates CN3, CN10, CCN0.8, CCN0.4, and CCN0.2 in the lower troposphere (0–3 km) by 6.8%, 1.91%, 1.36%, 0.74%, 0.54%, and 0.43%, respectively. The inclusion of the impact of 0.2 C temperature increase enhances the CCN solar cycle signals by around 50%.
The annual mean solar cycle CCN signals have large spatial and seasonal variations, about 50% larger than in the northern hemisphere than in the southern hemisphere and about a factor of two larger during the corresponding summer seasons. The average solar cycle signals are stronger in the lower troposphere where warm clouds are formed. The regions and seasons of stronger solar signals are associated with the higher concentrations of precursor gases which increase the growth rate of nucleated particles and the probability of these nucleated particles to become CCN. The effect of solar cycle perturbation on CCN0.2 based on the present study is generally higher than those reported in several previous studies, up to one order of magnitude. Clouds play a key role in the energy budget of Earth’s surface and lower atmosphere.
Small modifications of the amount, distribution, or radiative properties of clouds can have significant impacts on the climate. To study the impacts of a 0.5%–1% change in CCN during a solar cycle on cloud albedo, precipitation, cloud lifetime, and cloud cover, a global climate model considering robust aerosol–cloud interaction processes is needed. It should be noted that 0.5%–1% change in CCN during a solar cycle shown here only considers the effect of ionization rate and temperature change on new particle formation. During a solar cycle, changes of other parameters such as UV and TSI flux may also impact chemistry and microphysics, which may influence the magnitude of the solar indirect forcing. Further research is needed to better quantify the impact of solar activities on Earth’s climate.
Note the bold in the last paragraph.
WUWT readers may recall that Dr. Roy Spencer pointed out the issue of a slight change in cloud cover in his 2010 book intro of The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists. He writes:
“The most obvious way for warming to be caused naturally is for small, natural fluctuations in the circulation patterns of the atmosphere and ocean to result in a 1% or 2% decrease in global cloud cover. Clouds are the Earth’s sunshade, and if cloud cover changes for any reason, you have global warming — or global cooling.”
The paper at ERL:
Effect of solar variations on particle formation and cloud condensation nuclei
Fangqun Yu and Gan Luo
The impact of solar variations on particle formation and cloud condensation nuclei (CCN), a critical step for one of the possible solar indirect climate forcing pathways, is studied here with a global aerosol model optimized for simulating detailed particle formation and growth processes. The effect of temperature change in enhancing the solar cycle CCN signal is investigated for the first time. Our global simulations indicate that a decrease in ionization rate associated with galactic cosmic ray flux change from solar minimum to solar maximum reduces annual mean nucleation rates, number concentration of condensation nuclei larger than 10 nm (CN10), and number concentrations of CCN at water supersaturation ratio of 0.8% (CCN0.8) and 0.2% (CCN0.2) in the lower troposphere by 6.8%, 1.36%, 0.74%, and 0.43%, respectively. The inclusion of 0.2 °C temperature increase enhances the CCN [cloud condensation nuclei] solar cycle signals by around 50%. The annual mean solar cycle CCN signals have large spatial and seasonal variations: (1) stronger in the lower troposphere where warm clouds are formed, (2) about 50% larger in the northern hemisphere than in the southern hemisphere, and (3) about a factor of two larger during the corresponding hemispheric summer seasons. The effect of solar cycle perturbation on CCN0.2 [cloud condensation nuclei] based on present study is generally higher than those reported in several previous studies, up to around one order of magnitude.
The paper is open access and can be downloaded here: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/4/045004/pdf/1748-9326_9_4_045004.pdf
h/t to The Hockey Schtick and Bishop Hill
All signs point to ice age, by next winter hell will freeze over. Nothing but frozen co2 molecules!!!!!!! No I’m serious.
Steven Mosher says:
what did you find in night clouds?
Hi Steven
Second selection panel
http://gdata1.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/daac-bin/G3/gui.cgi?instance_id=MODIS_DAILY_L3
I used ASCI batch download
Herschel noticed this in 1801 http://simostronomy.blogspot.com/2013/01/sir-william-herschel-variable-stars.html “Sir William Herschel, Variable Stars, Sunspots and the Price of Wheat ” so its nothing new.
In fact its old science. What we have now proved is the mechanism.
Leo Smith says:
April 10, 2014 at 2:18 pm
You appear to need a pretty deep penetrating high energy muon, and those tend to be the least affected by sun deflection
In fact, they show almost no solar activity cycle modulation.
The amount of normal clouds stays relatively stable , It’s the amount of GCR’s clouds that changes. GCR clouds created during the minimum and then removed during solar max. But if solar max doesn’t remove them all, they begin to cool. Thus the amount of time above and below the zero line on the cosmic ray chart. GCR clouds are thin and wispy and block 2-3% of the suns rays. Now imagine 10yrs above and 4yrs below, that would have a cooling effect. I can tell by all the non responses that you think this is to simple to make a difference, Well keep it complicated then. There is nothing complicated about the climate. KISS, keep it simple stupid.
lsvalgaard says:
April 10, 2014 at 11:49 am
Duster says:
April 10, 2014 at 11:41 am
…
That link is interesting reading. I will be watching for the results of the study. I would be quite interested in the studies that contradict the increase in 10Be and 14C production during the last two to three centuries. The papers I have been able to track down with very few exceptions appear to indicate decreasing delta-14C in the latest Holocene. That would imply warming weather, IF the linkage is a simple linear one, which seems unlikely. Long term studies seem to show the same, but the resolution seems to be very low. At the other end are a large number of studies that focus pretty strictly on the post A-bomb era, which is much too short. Also, confounding effects are worth a look. We know that thunderstorms can generate gamma ray bursts, so it seems possible at first glance that the planet can produce some of its own 14C and 10Be without cosmic help.
Steven,
I appreciated the video. Still, if an argument is popularized, dumbed down, used as propaganda, and takes hold, then it matters. I don’t see what difference it makes that it’s not the real original argument.
Again, thanks though. It’s nice to know what the original source was.
Duster says:
April 10, 2014 at 3:27 pm
The papers I have been able to track down with very few exceptions appear to indicate decreasing delta-14C in the latest Holocene.
That is because the Earth’s magnetic field which much more strongly that the Sun screen us from cosmic rays has been changing
wayne says:
April 10, 2014 at 3:25 pm KISS I agree – it is the principle and sheer magnitude of the solar effect that matters. Delving ever deeper is simply descending into CHAOS theory, remember ‘A beautiful mind’
Svensmark’s Galactic Cosmic Ray theory is a nice theory, but it doesn’t correlate to observations with my Artificial Neural Network ANN at http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/climate-forcing.htm
I’ve tested different input signals against satellite measurements. The strongest correlation was with SST Sea Surface temperature, which makes sense.
This is then followed by ENSO, LOD, the solar wind and SOI in decreasing order. ENSO is correlated to LOD and the LOD signal is therefore in reality as a result from ENSO variations.
Yes, variations in the global mean temperature is partly dependent on variations in solar electro magnetic activity, but it is not as a result from variations in GCR. Solar wind is the culprit.
when the suns output is low the therasphere collaspes a thinner atmosphere allows more energy to flow back out to space
Duster says:
April 10, 2014 at 3:27 pm
The papers I have been able to track down with very few exceptions appear to indicate decreasing delta-14C in the latest Holocene.
That is because the Earth’s magnetic field which much more strongly that the Sun screen us from cosmic rays has been changing. I forgot this ref: see slide 18 of http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf
Steven Mosher says (April 10, 2014 at 10:10 am)
“Sadly the actual observations of low cloud percentages.. clouds at 1018hPa, 991hpa, 887 hpa, 771hpa, 648 hpa,548hpa. and 447hPa show NO RELATIONSHIP between changes in GCR and changes in clouds. None. Zip. zero.”
Some people believe in an indirect aerosol effect where changes in CCN change end up changing the droplet size in clouds and therefore its optical properties. Physics predicts that optical properties will vary with droplet size. What changes in clouds have not relationship to GCR: cloud cover, cloud altitude, or cloud optical properties (which perhaps simply means albedo)?
lsvalgaard says:
April 10, 2014 at 10:23 am
——
Bruce Cobb says:
April 10, 2014 at 10:14 am
The anti-solar crowd are never biased, or have money or other personal motivations other than pure science
——-
“Very perceptive. It is time that such a view is supported by more than just you.”
__________________________
Classic.
For me this only addresses part of the issue. The concentration of cloud forming chemicals available in the atmosphere is largely controlled by the oceans. Wind strength, deep water upwelling, ocean biology, and possibly ocean volcanism- especially close to areas of deep water upwelling all seem to me deeply connected to low cloud formation.
Does the sun’s magnetic field affect the Earth? Interesting question. If it affects the Earth it could easily affect the Earth’s weather. Fascinating theory.
Mosher, I said this before. The place to look is over the ocean, away from areas where there lots of aerosols that can already act as ccn.. I suggested that making a mask of areas with high average levels of CCN would be a good place to start.
The main reason anyone is interested in solar influence on climate is that the Church of Radiative Climatology went and made a fuss about radiative gases reducing the atmosphere’s radiative cooling ability. 0.8C in 100 years is well within the bounds of natural variability and if it hadn’t been for the inane claims of the Climastrologists, then 0.8C would be a matter of academic interest only and study of possible solar influence could be carried out in a calm and considered manner.
Because of the Climastrologists, the issue of solar climate influence has now become politicised, with global warming propagandists like the BBC looking to the sun for an exit strategy to save them from decades of burning shame.
There will be many ways solar variability effects climate. Some influences may be fast, like expansion and contraction of the thermosphere or changes in cloud cover. Some will be slow like SW/UV energy accumulation below the diurnal overturning layer in the oceans (the Svensmark effect would have both fast and slow influence). The various mechanisms may only have a minor influence, but they only need to add up to 0.8C per century. Ideally study of such mechanisms should be done in the traditional scientific manner, not the crazed pseudo scientific circus style of climastrology.
The best way to get back to traditional science is to destroy the pseudo science of global warming. And to do that, all you need to understand is the basics –
The sun heats the oceans.
The atmosphere cools the oceans.
Radiative gases cool the atmosphere.
AGW is a physical impossibility.
Then everyone can get back to the traditional scientific method. Currently Lukewarmer sceptics appear to be the biggest roadblock trapping us in the land of “post normal science”.
Konrad – hear hear.
As Alice cooper said welcome to my ice age. Ice age? That would be a nightmare.
“aaron says:
April 10, 2014 at 4:51 pm
Mosher, I said this before. The place to look is over the ocean, away from areas where there lots of aerosols that can already act as ccn.. I suggested that making a mask of areas with high average levels of CCN would be a good place to start”
Did that. Looked over land, looked over the Ocean. Looked for a signal in each and every grid cell.
Nothing. nada. Zilche.
Every cell. Day. Night. Every season. Every month. All latitude bands. All pressure levels.
Nada. Zilche. Zero.
Look
The hypothesis is that more GCR will change the amount of low level clouds.
I tested that hypothesis.
Multiple times; day clouds, night clouds. high latitude, low latitude. by hemisphere, by latitude band.
different bands. Down to 1 degree. every grid. Different pressure levels.
At some point it comes down to saying.. theory BUSTED. and somebody who believes in the theory has to suggest something to fix the theory.
“Some people believe in an indirect aerosol effect where changes in CCN change end up changing the droplet size in clouds and therefore its optical properties. Physics predicts that optical properties will vary with droplet size. What changes in clouds have not relationship to GCR: cloud cover, cloud altitude, or cloud optical properties (which perhaps simply means albedo)?”
###############
\ some people believe in space aliens. If you have a theory the first test is this.
Is the theory falsifiable IN PRINCIPLE. by in principle we mean this: can you specify in advance
a quantity to investigate.
As you write it “GCR may change something” well duh. The trick is to specify in advance what exactly will change and at least a direction.
“Whats needed, as others point out, is a detailed statistical study of what has actually happened to cloud in the era in which we have data (from about 1983) via the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project – at different levels, optical thickness, and spatial distribution, and the correlated (or not) with cosmic ray flux – as per Svensmark’s original paper covering solar cycle 22. ”
Prior cloud datasets dont give you best verticle resolution or horizontal resolution or temporal resolution.
If the GCR effect is there, you should be able to see it daily, monthly or yearly.
Mark
” I don’t see what difference it makes that it’s not the real original argument.”
really?
Anthony makes a good argument about surface station micro site bias. basically that half the warming since 1979 in the US is due to siting issues.
Suppose somebody takes that argument and says “skeptics deny all the warming in the world since 1850′
would that matter?
Of course. if we are after the best explanations of our world, then we do ourselves no favors by repeating rumours and mispresentations. find the best arguments and challenge them.
vuk.
you didnt look at night clouds? I know where to find MODIS..
hmm, when I get a chance I’ll look at your event using higher res data.
may take a while.. downloads take a week at least
Could the increase in noctilucent clouds from 2002 to 2011 be related to Svensmarks cosmic ray modulation of earths climate hypothesis?
http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/appearance-of-night-shining-clouds-has-increased/#.U0dCVPmSxg1