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
Dr Svalgard’s posts often make me think of this quote; “If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; but if he says that it is impossible, he is very probably wrong.” – Arthur C. Clarke
Leif
“The SIDC and I [with coauthors from Spain and USA] are putting final touches to a draft of our reassessment of the solar cycle. My input can be seen here”
Thanks, fascinating read.
“I think Roy Spencer’s observation, that just small cloud cover changes cause very large energy unbalance effects.”
so the indetectable changes in cloud cover cause the detectable secular changes in temperature,
while the detectable secular changes in c02 cause nothing?
For grins I was going to do a chart of GCR versus clouds and then tell people it was CO2 versus clouds. The point? they would look at the chart and say “the two are unrelated”
But when you show people the relationnship between GCR and clouds ( there is none) they will
not falisfy their hypothesis they will invent stuff out of whole cloth..
a. oh look at low level clouds ( this was the first change in the theory after it was busted)
b. no wait, look at forbush events when the change in GCR is big
c. no wait look at integrating the GCR
d. no wait, look at other cloud properties
e. no wait, look at this other data.. say diurnal range
f. no wait, maybe the effect is so small ( 1%) that its indetectable, but has a big effect
g. no wait, we see part of the process in the lab, your real world measurements have to be wrong
h. no wait, maybe it happens on odd tuesdays during the full moon when jupiter is aligned with mars.
I mean the warmista are bad enough refusing to climb down from a 3C per doubling.. but GCR nuts take the cake.
I post here mostly to keep my place in the thread make it simply to go back and start were I stopped.I do so enjoy reading all your comment
But wait
“Did anyone ever consider that the cosmic ray effect might not necessarily produce obvious clouds but simply a faint haze or aerosol effect ”
See people..
there you go. Now look for Haze..
Did anyone ever consider that the cosmic ray effect might not necessarily produce obvious clouds but a magic undetectable fairy dust that controls the temperature?”
I’m quite concerned about the next solar minimum. We are now at the second peak of a really weak max. The minimum a few years from now could really be a barn buster in terms of GCRs.
noloctd says:
April 10, 2014 at 6:39 pm
Dr Svalgard’s posts often make me think of this quote; “If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; but if he says that it is impossible, he is very probably wrong.” – Arthur C. Clarke
And when he says “show me your evidence”, what do then think?
In response to:
lsvalgaard says:
April 10, 2014 at 9:01 am
As the paper concludes: ” Further research is needed to better quantify the impact of solar activities on Earth’s climate.” = please give me more money.
The problem with this kind of papers is that they ignore that solar activity and cosmic ray flux have not varied much [apart form the obvious 11- and 100-yr cycles] the past 300 years, while the climate has. For example, we are currently down to the same level of solar activity as a century ago, but the climate now is not what it was back then.
William:
You are mistaken. The planet is now cooling. The ‘climate’ is changing to the climate during the cooling phase of a Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle. Record sea ice in the Antarctic and recovering sea ice in the Arctic.
What has changed that could have caused the sudden cooling both poles? CO2? No CO2 is increasing. Has the sun changed? Yes. Note the delay in cooling of the planet due to the sun is caused by the change in the sun and is the reason for the sudden significant changes to the geomagnetic field.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/iphone/images/iphone.anomaly.global.png
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
Does the current global warming signal reflect a recurrent natural cycle and that is caused by solar magnetic cycle changes? Yes, the Southern sea region has warmed and cooled 342 times. The warming cycle excludes the Antarctic ice sheet which is isolated by the polar vortex. The Antarctic ice sheet response differentially than the Greenland ice sheet to an increase in cloud cover as the Antarctic ice sheet albedo is slightly greater than the albedo of clouds. The higher albedo of the Antarctic ice sheet is caused by the very, very, high velocity and steady Antarctic winds that break the snow crystals, creating an ice like substance. The different response to a change in cloud cover at high latitude regions is the cause of the polar sea-saw which is the term for the fact that proxy record shows the Greenland ice sheet cools when the Antarctic ice sheet warms and vice versa.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/davis-and-taylor-wuwt-submission.pdf
Davis and Taylor: “Does the current global warming signal reflect a natural cycle”
…We found 342 natural warming events (NWEs) corresponding to this definition, distributed over the past 250,000 years …. …. The 342 NWEs contained in the Vostok ice core record are divided into low-rate warming events (LRWEs; < 0.74oC/century) and high rate warming events (HRWEs; ≥ 0.74oC /century) (Figure). … ….The current global warming signal is therefore the slowest and among the smallest in comparison with all HRWEs in the Vostok record, although the current warming signal could in the coming decades yet reach the level of past HRWEs for some parameters. The figure shows the most recent 16 HRWEs in the Vostok ice core data during the Holocene, interspersed with a number of LRWEs. …. ….We were delighted to see the paper published in Nature magazine online (August 22, 2012 issue) reporting past climate warming events in the Antarctic similar in amplitude and warming rate to the present global warming signal. The paper, entitled "Recent Antarctic Peninsula warming relative to Holocene climate and ice – shelf history" and authored by Robert Mulvaney and colleagues of the British Antarctic Survey ( Nature , 2012, doi:10.1038/nature11391),reports two recent natural warming cycles, one around 1500 AD and another around 400 AD, measured from isotope (deuterium) concentrations in ice cores bored adjacent to recent breaks in the ice shelf in northeast Antarctica. ….
Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper. William: As this paper shows there the Greenland Ice data shows that have been 9 warming and cooling periods in the last 11,000 years.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
P.S. Richard Alley is drinking the cool aid and is a true AGW believer. I am curious when the true AGW believers will start to jump ship, as the planet cools.
William Astley says:
April 10, 2014 at 7:33 pm
You are mistaken. The planet is now cooling.
The planet has been cooling the past many thousands of years. The Sun has not changed over that span. As I have said many times, your ideas are flights of fancy. Some people like such, so enjoy your ride.
Steven Mosher says:
April 10, 2014 at 7:03 pm
“Did anyone ever consider that the cosmic ray effect might not necessarily produce obvious clouds but a magic undetectable fairy dust that controls the temperature?”
————————————-
So what caused the little ice age or the medieval warm period?
It couldn’t have been changes in CO2 concentration because atmospheric CO2 concentration is driven by temperature.
Perhaps variation in levels of “magic undetectable fairy dust”?
One can discount many theories, but one cannot discount our lack of understanding of the interaction of those terrestrial and non-terrestrial influences on our climate. We have much to learn.
Steven Mosher says:
April 10, 2014 at 6:12 pm
I stand corrected. Thanks Steven.
The first diagram in the post above is one of mine from about six years ago. Still fresh, still relevant – a classic. There is a paper coming that will explain just how long the lag is – can’t say more.
I think Steven’s got us here. I’ve been in a vaguely bad mood all day, most like because I knew in the back of my mind I was bullshitting myself.
~sigh~
Bitch about Mosher hit and runs? I didn’t know how good I had it. 😉
Thanks Steven.
David Archibald says:
April 10, 2014 at 7:59 pm
There is a paper coming that will explain just how long the lag is – can’t say more.
Wrong attitude David. If you have some to bring to the table, say it, otherwise …
From “The Hunt for Red October”:
“Personally, I’d give us one chance in three. More tea anyone?” states Captain Ramius.
“We’re out of the lane!”
“You’re relieved!”
Somewhere in the Orion Spur of Red Route 1…….the Neptune Massif lurks……
Like the two previous post-MPT interglacials, which also occurred at an eccentricity minimum, MIS-11 and MIS-19, the Holocene (MIS-1) either will or won’t go longer than about half a precession cycle.
It literally is just that simple.
Anything else is just feldercarb.
Ah, Dr Svalgaard. You should learn to enjoy climate science while it is still of interest to some people. A lot of enjoyment is from the anticipation of something wonderful. That is what I am providing to the readers of WUWT. An extra component of joy. And something wonderful is coming. People like yourself who over-emphasise the hand of man in climate and deny the Sun’s influence will read it and become enlightened. It is bullet-proof. In fierce tempest it is coming, in thunder and earthquake like a Jove, to sweep the flimsy construction of the warmers in the peer-reviewed journals from the plain of battle.
David Archibald says:
April 10, 2014 at 8:26 pm
A lot of enjoyment is from the anticipation of something wonderful.
Sounds like a bad case of the D-K syndrome… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
IPCC backing off!
Reuters’ original headline was the straightforward “UN climate report stops short of clear economic case for action”. now it is:
10 April: Reuters: Alister Doyle: UPDATE 1-UN climate report seeks clearer economics to guide action
A U.N. report about ways to fix global warming due on Sunday is likely to disappoint investors seeking clear-cut economic calculations about the benefits and costs of curbing rising greenhouse gas emissions.
Authors say the report stops short of an economic bottom line since it is hard to put a value, for instance, on human lives lost to extreme weather or on risks of a faster melt of Greenland’s ice sheet that would push up sea levels.
The United States and other governments, at talks in Berlin, were pushing for clearer economic arguments from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is meant to guide ***trillion-dollar*** curbs on greenhouse gas emissions…
STERN REVIEW
The lack of a clear economic bottom line “is a worry … the elements are all there but it takes too much work to lift them out,” said Nicholas Stern, chair of the Grantham Research Institute at the London School of Economics…
Investors are also concerned about difficulties in comparing IPCC estimates of costs and benefits.
***”It’s a hard read,” Stephanie Pfeifer, Chief Executive of the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change that groups pension funds and asset managers that control 7.5 trillion euros ($10.35 trillion), said of the reports.
Clearer economic conclusions would help persuade companies and investors to act, she said…
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/04/10/climate-un-idUKL6N0N24IF20140410
the headline should be: “financial institutions seek clearer IPCC economics to guide financial action”!
If the sun was acting normal gcr’s would not be a factor, but when the sun looses half it’s magnetic field strength GCR’s have a huge impact on our climate. Your witnessing something never before seen in the history of man, the start of an ice age. What caused the Suns magnetic field to weaken? For that you need to look outside our solar system for the cause. Did our solar system move out of an area high in energy? Current flowing in from our galaxy into our solar system has dropped off weakening the suns magnetic field? So any past studies of our climate system is meaningless. Everyone is in for a big surprise.
wayne says:
April 10, 2014 at 8:45 pm
when the sun looses half it’s magnetic field strength GCR’s have a huge impact on our climate. Your witnessing something never before seen in the history of man
The Sun’s magnetic field [and that in interplanetary space that controls the GCRs] is the same now in cycle 24 as it was in cycle 14, a hundred years ago, e.g. Figure 6 of http://www.leif.org/research/Error-Scale-Values-HLS.pdf
Willis
I quote Dr. Nir Shaviv. See Figure 3 in the link for correlation between cosmic ray and low cloud cover. http://www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate
“The solar-activity – cosmic-ray-flux – cloud-cover correlation is quite apparent. It was in fact sought for by Henrik Svensmrk, based on theoretical considerations. However, by itself it cannot be used to prove the cosmic ray climate connection. The reason is that we cannot exclude the possibility that solar activity modulates the cosmic ray flux and independently climate, without any casual link between the latter two. There is however separate proof that a casual link exists between cosmic rays and climate, and independently that cosmic rays left a fingerprint in the observed cloud cover variations.”
Dr. Strangelove says:
April 10, 2014 at 8:49 pm
See Figure 3 in the link for correlation between cosmic ray and low cloud cover.
As always happens with claims that are spurious to begin with, when more data becomes available, the correlation breaks down: http://www.leif.org/research/Cloud-Cover-GCR-Disconnect.png
William McClenny – you are right we do need to know where we are relative to the natural orbital cycles and the 405000 year eccentricity cycle is a good place to start . These cycles are seen in the geological record back at least 450 million years. We are indeed at a similar place to MIS 11 and 19. These orbital cycles are then modulated by natural quasi cycles of solar activity notably during the Holocene by the 1000 year and 60 year cycles, see
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
Obviously the effect on climate of the activity cycles will be different at different phases of the orbital cycles that is why the temperature cycles are fuzzy ie quasi periodic and quasi repetitive in amplitude.
Steve Mosher Your the one claiming that the fairy dust is undetectable I’m saying that the haze is visible and the sky a paler blue . The effect is similar to some of the effects of the Carrington event – read up on various Loomis accounts especially the illustrated one in Harpers magazine..
,
I still be believe the solar wind is going to just stop after SC24. We will be shrouded in deep clouds like the earth was in other ice ages. I guess I have hard core D-K syndrome.