Last week I hinted at this upcoming paper, which was embargoed until this morning. I noted then something Dr. Roy Spencer said in his book about clouds: The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists and how this new paper could be the “holy grail” of climate science, if it is true.
“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.”
Today, we have news of something that modulates cloud cover in a new paper by Henrik Svensmark in Nature Communications.
PRESS RELEASE: DTU Space at the Technical University of Denmark
A breakthrough in the understanding of how cosmic rays from supernovae can influence Earth´s cloud cover and thereby climate is published today in the journal Nature Communications. The study reveals how atmospheric ions, produced by the energetic cosmic rays raining down through the atmosphere, helps the growth and formation of cloud condensation nuclei – the seeds necessary for forming clouds in the atmosphere. When the ionization in the atmosphere changes, the number of cloud condensation nuclei changes affecting the properties of clouds. More cloud condensation nuclei mean more clouds and a colder climate, and vice versa. Since clouds are essential for the amount of Solar energy reaching the surface of Earth the implications can be significant for our understanding of why climate has varied in the past and also for a future climate changes.

atmosphere and produces a cascade of secondary particles who ionize molecules when traveling through the air. One 100 GeV proton hits every square meter at the top of the atmosphere every second.
Cloud condensation nuclei can be formed by the growth of small molecular clusters called aerosols. It has until now been assumed that additional small aerosols would not grow and become cloud condensation nuclei, since no mechanism was known to achieve this. The new results reveal, both theoretically and experimentally, how interactions between ions and aerosols can accelerate the growth by adding material to the small aerosols and thereby help them survive to become cloud condensation nuclei. It gives a physical foundation to the large body of empirical evidence showing that Solar activity plays a role in variations in Earth’s climate. For example, the Medieval Warm Period around year 1000 AD and the cold period in the Little Ice Age 1300-1900 AD both fits with changes in Solar activity.
“Finally we have the last piece of the puzzle explaining how particles from space affect climate on Earth. It gives an understanding of how changes caused by Solar activity or by super nova activity can change climate.”
says Henrik Svensmark, from DTU Space at the Technical University of Denmark, lead author of the study. Co- authors are senior researcher Martin Bødker Enghoff (DTU Space), Professor Nir Shaviv (Hebrew University of Jerusalem), and Jacob Svensmark, (University of Copenhagen).
The new study
The fundamental new idea in the study is to include a contribution to growth of aerosols by the mass of the ions. Although the ions are not the most numerous constituents in the atmosphere the electro-magnetic interactions between ions and aerosols compensate for the scarcity and make fusion between ions and aerosols much more likely. Even at low ionization levels about 5% of the growth rate of aerosols is due to ions. In the case of a nearby super nova the effect can be more than 50% of the growth rate, which will have an impact on the clouds and the Earth’s temperature.
To achieve the results a theoretical description of the interactions between ions and aerosols was formulated along with an expression for the growth rate of the aerosols. The ideas were then tested experimentally in a large cloud chamber. Due to experimental constraints caused by the presence of chamber walls, the change in growth rate that had to be measured was of the order 1%, which poses a high demand on stability during the experiments, and experiments were repeated up to 100 times in order to obtain a good signal relative to unwanted fluctuations. Data was taken over a period of 2 years with total 3100 hours of data sampling. The results of the experiments agreed with the theoretical predictions.
The hypothesis in a nutshell
- Cosmic rays, high-energy particles raining down from exploded stars, knock electrons out of air molecules. This produces ions, that is, positive and negative molecules in the atmosphere.
- The ions help aerosols – clusters of mainly sulphuric acid and water molecules – to form and become stable against evaporation. This process is called nucleation. The small aerosols need to grow nearly a million times in mass in order to have an effect on clouds.
- The second role of ions is that they accelerate the growth of the small aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei – seeds on which liquid water droplets form to make clouds. The more ions the more aerosols become cloud condensation nuclei. It is this second property of ions which is the new result published in Nature Communications.
- Low clouds made with liquid water droplets cool the Earth’s surface.
- Variations in the Sun’s magnetic activity alter the influx of cosmic rays to the Earth.
- When the Sun is lazy, magnetically speaking, there are more cosmic rays and more low clouds, and the world is cooler.
- When the Sun is active fewer cosmic rays reach the Earth and, with fewer low clouds, the world warms up.
- The implications of the study suggests that the mechanism can have affected:
- The climate changes observed during the 20th century
- The coolings and warmings of around 2°C that have occurred repeatedly over the past 10,000 years, as the Sun’s activity and the cosmic ray influx have varied.
- The much larger variations of up to 10°C occurring as the Sun and Earth travel through the Galaxy visiting regions with varying numbers of exploding stars.
The authors
- Dr. Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Institute, in the Technical University of Denmark (DTU).
- Senior Resercher Martin Andres Bødker Enghoff, Danish National Space Institute, in the Technical University of Denmark (DTU).
- Professor Nir Shaviv, Physics Institute, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
- Ph.D. student Jacob Svensmark, Dark Cosmology Center, University of Copenhagen.
Full journal reference
H. Svensmark, M.B. Enghoff, N. Shaviv and J. Svensmark, Increased ionization supports growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei, Nature Communications DOI: 10.1038/s41467-017-02082-2
The paper is here https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02082-2
Abstract:
Increased ionization supports growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei
H. Svensmark 1, M.B. Enghoff 1, N.J. Shaviv2 & J. Svensmark1,3
Ions produced by cosmic rays have been thought to influence aerosols and clouds. In this study, the effect of ionization on the growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei is investigated theoretically and experimentally. We show that the mass-flux of small ions can constitute an important addition to the growth caused by condensation of neutral molecules. Under present atmospheric conditions the growth rate from ions can constitute several percent of the neutral growth rate. We performed experimental studies which quantify the effect of ions on the growth of aerosols between nucleation and sizes >20 nm and find good agreement with theory. Ion-induced condensation should be of importance not just in Earth’s present day atmosphere for the growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei under pristine marine conditions, but also under elevated atmospheric ionization caused by increased supernova activity.
From the discussion section of the paper:
This suggests that there are vast regions where conditions are such that the proposed mechanism could be important, i.e., where aerosols are nucleated in Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone and moved to regions where relative large variations ionization can be found. Here the aerosols could grow faster under the influence of ion condensation, and the perturbed growth rate will influence the survivability of the aerosols and thereby the resulting CCN density. Finally the aerosols are brought down and entrained into the marine boundary layer, where clouds properties are sensitive to the CCN density2.
Although the above is on its own speculative, there are observations to further support the idea. On rare occasions the Sun ejects solar plasma (coronal mass ejections) that may pass Earth, with the effect that the cosmic ray flux decreases suddenly and stays low for a week or two. Such events, with a significant reduction in the cosmic rays flux, are called Forbush decreases, and can be used to test the link between cosmic ray ionization and clouds. A recent comprehensive study identified the strongest Forbush decreases, ranked them according to strength, and discussed some of the controversies that have surrounded this subject.
Atmospheric data consisted of three independent cloud satellite data sets and one data set for aerosols. A clear response to the five strongest Forbush decreases was seen in both aerosols and all low cloud data. The global average response time from the change in ionization to the change in clouds was ~7 days, consistent with the above growth rate of ~0.4 nm h−1. The five strongest Forbush decreases (with ionization changes comparable to those observed over a solar cycle) exhibited inferred aerosol changes and cloud micro-physics changes of the order ~2%7. The range of ion production in the atmosphere varies between 2 and 35 ions pairs s−1 cm−337 and from Fig. 1b it can be inferred from that a 20% variation in the ion production can impact the growth rate in the range 1–4% (under the pristine conditions). It is suggested that such changes in the growth rate can explain the ~2% changes in clouds and aerosol change observed during Forbush decreases.
It should be stressed that there is not just one effect of CCN on clouds, but that the impact will depend on regional differences and cloud types. In regions with a relative high number of CCN the presented effect will be small, in addition the effect on convective clouds and on ice clouds is expected to be negligible. Additional CCNs can even result in fewer clouds. Since the ion condensation effect is largest for low SA concentrations and aerosol densities, the impact is believed to be largest in marine stratus clouds.
Further reading:
COSMIC RAYS, CLOUDS AND CLIMATE
Henrik Svensmark – DOI: 10.1051/epn/2015204
National Space Institute – Technical University of Denmark – Elektrovej, Bygning 328, 2800 Kgs – Lyngby, Denmark
The most profound questions with the most surprising answers are often the simplest to ask. One is: Why is the climate always changing? Historical and archaeological evidence of global warming and cooling that occurred long before the Industrial Revolution, require natural explanations.
Link to the PDF: SvensmarkEPN_46-2-2_2015
From that article:

Further Reading:
Scientists agree that the earth has become hotter over the last century. But on the causes, despite what looks to the public mind like a consensus, there are dissenting voices. Based on Henrik Svensmark’s research at the Danish National Space Center, this book outlines a brilliant and daring new theory that has already provoked fresh thinking on global warming. As prize-winning science writer Nigel Calder and Svensmark himself explain, an interplay of the sun and cosmic rays – sub-atomic particles from exploded stars – seem to have more effect on the climate than man-made carbon dioxide. For anyone interested in the real science behind our climate, this book is a must-read.
COUNTERPOINT:
I asked prominent solar physicist Dr. Leif Svalgaard his opinion on the paper (and sent him the advance full copy). He had this to say:
Think about this:
TSI over a solar cycle causes a variation of 0.05-0.10 degrees C. If GCRs as per Svensmark has 5-7 times the effect of TSI, that would translate to a temperature variation of 0.35-0.50 C over a cycle, which is simply not observed, hence the paper can be dismissed out of hand.
The battle over this paper will soon be waged in press and peer-review.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Much if the discussion here is missing the bigger picture. The argument seems stuck on individual trees and misses the forest.
Let’s just step back and think clearly.
1) The Sun (and our distance/orientation) MUST be the biggest factor influencing global temperature (if there even is such a vague non physical concept as global temperature)
2) The cloud cover or Albedo MUST be the second biggest factor (obvious if you ever were outside on a mostly sunny day when a cloud shaded you)
3) All other factors are minor or local. One can assume that atmospheric composition simply doesnt change very much. Water cycles and convection are huge factors but given our planet is covered by two-thirds ocean it is obvious that whatever water does it is a constant factor globally. Only a large meteor impact and/or massive volcanic activity can affect global temperatures and this is pretty much random,
Now bearing in mind the above, strong paleo-climate evidence suggests significant changes in global climate (snowball earth being the most extreme) – effects that do not appear to be related to orbital parameters. What most likely causes this MUST be either the Sun or Albedo. This is the blindingly obvious first place to look!!!! All the rest is 2nd order or 3rd order NOISE.
So while the Svensmark GCR Cloud theory may seem to currently be quite a stretch. Lets face it, this is really a great place to look!!!!! The compelling physics of the situation DEMAND that global effects be SUN or CLOUD cover (ALBEDO) related.
So STOP, take a step back, forget about grandstanding on your soap box and everyone just recognize that this GCR-CLOUD-SUN research is most definitely looking in the RIGHT place!! We should ALL (including Lief) be LAUDING these efforts even if it turbs out to be a dead end!!!!
You are forgetting the elephant in the room, the 70 % of the earth covered by water which stores and releases energy by mechanisms we still do not really understand. Snowball earth is thought by some to have occurred when plate movement cut off the ocean conveyor which takes warm water north and cold water south. Then of course, there is also undersea volcanism, of which we also have little knowledge (obsevations) which also add energy to the situation on an unknown schedule. The number of variables influencing climate is large and clouds and co2 are two of those but cannot, by themselves, be the final answer.
Agreed that the oceans play a significant role due to heat capacity. However, as far as I know the oceans have been around for billions of years and can simply be considered a constant modifier to whatever mechanism actually causes warming or cooling.
Oceans have not been a constant. Like everything else they change. As I noted, currents have changed due to plate movement, temperatures have changed due to cooling of the earth and changes in undersea volcanic activity and so on.
Climate change as measured in tenths of a degree has been small and has varied very little since the Earth has recovered from the Little Ice Age. Whatever models and theories put forward to tout climate change have about the same degree of predictive accuracy as the theory proposed by Svensmark. Both have minimal explanatory value.
I think threshold values are out there as far as cosmic ray increases and the resultant effects.
Those thresholds being an x number of cosmic rays and x time of duration of cosmic ray increases versus cloud coverage increase.
I think thresholds are out there for all prolonged solar effects, and this is why at times nothing dramatic to the climate happens because the thresholds are not reached.
So it is not only the prolonged low solar effects but how low and how long in duration they are which impacts the climate in a major way which makes solar/climate correlations obscure ,when those items are not extreme enough.
There has to be a level of low solar activity that effects the climate, the question is what is the level and is it reached?
I say yes and yes. Reached when the sun enters a prolonged solar minimum period of time following sub solar activity in general.
I think it is starting to happen now.
Overall sea surface temperatures now +.235c down from summer range of +.28c to +.38c
In a previous comment, Dave in Canmore says: “If it was a large effect, then we would see the sunspot cycle affect ocean SSTs. As has been shown previously on WUWT, there is no correlation no matter how compelling the idea may be. Dr Shaviv’s claim only holds when you ignore all the SST data that does not correlate.”
I believe that the inability to find a correlation lies more in the inability to extract information from the raw data, rather than the lack of the information within the data.
When characterizing forcing variables, I like to use the Exponentially Weighted Moving Average, EWMA, (see Wikipedia for its description). It is a common filter used for signal processing for process control, because it has three excellent characteristics:
. – It is computationally very efficient, with using only 3 pieces of data for a calculations
– It is a very effective tool for removing signal noise, to reveal the underlying trends.
– Past history decays away exponentially, much like a natural process, rather than being dropped, like with conventional averaging.
I have done this for both ENSO and Sunspot data, and got some very interesting results. I am unable to post the graphs, so I will describe them.
When I apply the EWMA to ENSO monthly data, using a weighting (λ) of 0.01 for the latest month, I get a graph that very closely resembles the global temperature trends of the last 60 years, in particular the generally increasing trend from approximately 1970 to 2000, followed by a pause.
When I apply the same method (EWMA 0.01) to the Sunspot Numbers, as a proxy for solar forcing, I get a similar graph, only about 30 years earlier. In this case there is a systematic rise in the EWMA of Sunspot numbers from approximately 1935 to approximately 1965, followed by a pause until approximately 1995. The EWMA of Sunspot numbers has since rolled over and is now in a declining trend.
In summary, by applying a simple statistical process control filter to the data, it is possible that their is a remarkable similarity between increased ENSO forcing and increasing global temperatures in the period since 1970, including the pause since 200, Likewise there is a remarkable similarity between between increase ENSO forcing and increased Solar forcing, approximately 3 decades earlier. The solar forcing also paused, after 1965, and is now declining.
These results suggest that the root cause of the increase in global temperatures that we have seen since 1970 may be the rather remarkable increase in solar forcing, as characterized by the Sunspot number, in the middle of the 20th century. As is well known, this increase in solar forcing has now reversed itself.
I would be happy to forward the graphs by e-mail to anyone who is interested. (dh.mtl.can@gmail.com)
Tmax is a good proxy for energy coming through the atmosphere.
Funny: cannot find the 11 year Schwabe cycle there, but I do see my 23 years Hale cycle
So far I have:
1)Tmean before 50 years ago is not reliable.
2) SSN before 100 years ago is not reliable.
3) there is no Schwabe cycle. The Hale cycle is clearly visible in the Tmax record.
My prediction for the future:
One more Hale cycle of cooling coming up now. Sharp drop in T coming up very soon. We are now where we were in 1930. Only 2 years away from the big dust bowl drought. 10 years away from the freezing 40’s.
That is going to cause some problems.
Yet, we have all these clowns here fiddling with their violins, completely clueless about climate change.
What a tragedy.
Seasons greetings all.
One thing that seems to be missing is that cloud albedo can apparently vary some based upon the nature of the particulates involved. Consequently, it’s not just the total coverage amount of clouds present. I seem to recall Lindzen’s Iris Effect research/theories looked into this.
Talk is just that, talk.
It seems from this passage that their results are experimentally verifiable.
.If it can be shown, It must be so.
Things that are true can be dismissed out-of-hand.
It happens all the time.
First Svensmark & Co should be congratulated for over 20 years of publishing papers about GCRs, replete with a very effective PR campaign, without ever having to or be expected to show much of any ongoing real-time evidence or predictions at all to support their theory about the relative influence of GCRs over time on real weather and climate indices wrt clouds and SST warming/cooling, and events such as ENSOs.
Have they made a single falsifiable prediction with their theory in 20 years? Can they? How will GCRs effect SSTs and the ENSO for example, next year. When is the next GCR ENSO and how and why will it occur? The same questions of CO2 theory are left unanswered too.
If only we all could get away with such regular handwaving, as warmists do, as those who mainly think the atmosphere controls climate change via GCRs and/or CO2.
This paper and conventional theory in general mis-attributes and misrepresents the real TSI influence as minor when it is everything. I see lots of people here having a definite opinion on TSI without showing me any sign of having done any research of their own on the subject, with many simply parroting Leif’s and the IPCC UN faulty view that TSI is the least important ‘forcing’. This conventional view is inverted.
The TSI solar cycle influence is responsible for SST warming and cooling. Clouds are primarily an effect of insolation ocean heating. High TSI or high insolation even under low TSI are responsible for tropical ocean evaporation that provides the majority of water vapor in the atmosphere. Without this tropically evaporated WV, no GCR ion nucleation happens.
What is necessary to put GCR theory in its true place in the order of solar influences is an understanding of TSI-insolation warming/cooling first, in order to understand that the TSI influence is not below 0.1C, but virtually the whole solar cycle temperature rise and fall. The conventional idea of the TSI influence is wrong.
Their theories aren’t operational nor can they provide daily weather insights in the way understanding TSI properly allows me (and yes, eventually you too) to do. Extreme event attribution becomes easy when you know how the always ongoing variable TSI influence is affecting SSTs and evaporation.
I’ll be back to clean this climate mess up in January after the 2017 data is in, with a full report on my research, my successful F10.7cm-TSI-SST forecasting, reveal the true TSI solar cycle influence, show how TSI causes extreme events, and to finally put GCR and GHG theories in their place as 2nd and 3rd order effects.
Bob
there are some of us who did do some research.
Most clearly emanating from a number of completely different angles of research by myself is a sine wave for incoming energy which has a wavelength of 86.5 years.
The curve is natural: top was in 1971-2, bottom was in 2013-4
It looks from history that there could have been hiccups at the turning points [increased minima /maxima?], but then again, the data that you have to rely on is just so ‘old’
.The quadrants are about 22 years on average – some variation has been observed.
if you are clever, you can use this info to predict the weather…

it works like a clock does it not?
Must be intelligent design.
Wishing you a blessed Christmas and a healthy New Yaer.
.
sorry
that should have been;
Wishing you all! a blessed Christmas and a healthy New Year.
I think as the low solar activity becomes more established the climatic effects solar does have on the climate will become more apparent.
The next few years starting from this point in time should be revealing.
Clouds modulate the heating effect of the sun by acting as a thermostatic sunshade. More warming produces evaporation and more clouds. Less warming and fewer clouds results in more solar radiation getting through. This mechanism creates stability. Solar radiation penetrates the oceans, but due to poor mixing, much of this energy can be retained at depth.
The sea surface temperature determines the temperature of the atmosphere with which it is in contact. It therefore acts as a buffer with regard to air temperatures.
Solar cycles occur because the surface of the fluid plasma does not keep up with the rotating solar core creating contortions in the magnetic field. Some papers claim that variations in cycles (i.e. periods of activity and inactivity) are related to the gravitational effects of different alignments of the more massive planets in our solar system.
If the solar plasma is subject to gravimetrically induced turbulence, then so should the oceans covering two thirds of our planet. Such turbulence may well include the phenomenon known as overturning whereby vertical mixing results in heat flows within the oceans.
This may explain why changes in solar activity appear to coincide with changes in climate.
Do you associate solar energy that has penetrated the ocean surface and retained at depth with the known ~60 year ocean cycles?
I’m not claiming anything yet in that level of detail. I’m simply saying that most of the heat is stored in the oceans. The gravitational effects of the larger planets that churn up the sun to produce maximum solar activity must surely affect our oceans too.The release of heat from overturning of the oceans would then coincide with high solar activity. Periods of low solar activity would coincide with a low level of heat release from the oceans due to low levels of overturning. This could explain the observed relationship between solar activity and our climate.
Today phys.org referenced a paper showing an 11-year cycle of brightness on Uranus. The authors attribute it partly to the likelihood of ion-induced nucleation due to increased galactic cosmic ray influence during low solar activity. They also reference an earlier paper showing the same effect on Neptune.
https://phys.org/news/2017-12-sun-remote-planet-uranus-brightness.html
actually, by looking at the position of Uranus and Saturn you can predict the solar polar magnetic field strength,
did you know that?
http://oi64.tinypic.com/5yxjyu.jpg
We can argue about the merits of Dr Svensmark’s work, but there is no doubt that ionized particles cause water molecules to condense into droplets, and thus clouds. For about a century, scientists have utilized cloud chambers to detect Cosmic Rays and other particles.
Supernovae are only one source of Cosmic Rays, and the rate of arrival of CRs at Earth depends on the strength of the Solar Wind, which itself varies with Solar activity cycles. Papers published around ten years ago linked Cosmic Rays, the Solar Wind and Solar cycles, and the Solar System’s transits in and out of the spiral arms of the galaxy. I drew together some of the source material here:
http://granitegrok.com/blog/2013/08/forecast-for-global-warmists-cloudy-with-a-chance-of-cosmic-rays
(Thanks also to American Thinker for some of the material used.)
Something comes to mind.
The Earth’s magnetic field “Flips” every 200,000 to 300,000 years on average.
This would obviously have an effect on the number of GCR’s entering the atmosphere.
Is this detectable in the record?
No.
https://phys.org/news/2012-10-extremely-reversal-geomagnetic-field-climate.html
http://www.leif.org/research/LaChamp-Event.png
From their paper http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X12003421 :
“No direct link between climate variability and geomagnetic field intensity [and thus GCRs] , as contemporaneously recorded in the Black Sea sediments is obvious from this study.”
It was a rhetorical question Leif…. in that I was sure there wasn’t.
I think the earth’s magnetic field ‘s role in the climate is not accounted for in an adequate manner.
The evidence is when the magnetic fields of the sun and earth are weak the result is cold.
This is the direction that seems to be occurring.
Comic ray counts now above 7000 and overall sea surface temperatures down to+.210c.
I expect overall sea surface temperatures to keep falling and be around 0 deviation by summer of 2018.
Opinions are so vastly different we will see.
Opinions are so vastly different
Opinions are not science.
Opinions are fake science.
Such as the 97%, used to bully non-believers.
cor – cosmic ray count 6726 . I had said over 7000 which was wrong.
Mmmm: Interesting that Svensmark et al to not cite a paper by Kulmala et al (below) – but do cite earlier papers by the same author. Svensmark et al. seems to ignore a number of recent papers that appear to contradict what they’re suggesting in this new paper.
https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/10/1885/2010/acp-10-1885-2010.pdf
“Our analysis shows that none of
the quantities related to aerosol formation correlates with the
cosmic ray-induced ionisation intensity (CRII). We also examined
the contribution of ions to new particle formation on
the basis of novel ground-based and airborne observations.
A consistent result is that ion-induced formation contributes
typically significantly less than 10% to the number of new particles, which would explain the missing correlation between
CRII and aerosol formation. Our main conclusion is
that galactic cosmic rays appear to play a minor role for atmospheric
aerosol formation events, and so for the connected
aerosol-climate effects as well.”