SVENSMARK’s Force Majeure, The Sun’s Large Role in Climate Change

GUEST: HENRIK SVENSMARK

By H. Sterling Burnett

By bombarding the Earth with cosmic rays and being a driving force behind cloud formations, the sun plays a much larger role on climate than “consensus scientists” care to admit.

The Danish National Space Institute’s Dr. Henrik Svensmark has assembled a powerful array of data and evidence in his recent study, Force Majeure the Sun’s Large Role in Climate Change.

The study shows that throughout history and now, the sun plays a powerful role in climate change. Solar activity impacts cosmic rays which are tied to cloud formation. Clouds, their abundance or dearth, directly affects the earth’s climate.

Climate models don’t accurately account for the role of clouds or solar activity in climate change, with the result they assume the earth is much more sensitive to greenhouse gas levels than it is. Unfortunately, the impact of clouds and the sun on climate are understudied because climate science has become so politicized.

Full audio interview here:

H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D. is a Heartland senior fellow on environmental policy and the managing editor of Environment & Climate News.

Advertisements

165 thoughts on “SVENSMARK’s Force Majeure, The Sun’s Large Role in Climate Change

  1. Thought we already knew that, courtesy of Dr. Svensmark. Good to see it repeated; maybe some new people will become more comfortable with the world not ending because of beneficial warming.

    • I agree there is certainly more going on than cloud cover changes only, as resulting directly from increased CCN’s as a consequence of more comics rays.
      Further to your summarised explanation, I see the ozone layer warming and expanding the stratosphere/mesosphere in a particular way by means of changing the intensity, position and orientation of the Hadley Cells and the Azores High in particular. (Haigh) Recent decades and high sun activity has seen the Azores High often positioned to force the predominately zonal SW to NE jet-stream across the North Atlantic to the north of Norway, or thereabouts and increasing water vapour values and cloud cover in NW Europe/Asia: This in late autumn/winter/early spring inhibits surface temperatures from dropping and the formation of snow cover. A sustained period of a SW to NE jet-stream flow, imo, also increases the momentum and penetration of the Gulf-Stream/North Atlantic Drift into the Arctic basin with rising sea temperatures, increased cloud cover and associated ice loss.
      Then you have to consider the knock on effects of the changed synoptics in NW Europe across the N. hemisphere…….

    • I agree there is certainly more going on than cloud cover changes only, as resulting directly from increased CCN’s as a consequence of more comics rays.
      Further to your summarised explanation, I see the ozone layer warming and expanding the stratosphere/mesosphere in a particular way by means of changing the intensity, position and orientation of the Hadley Cells and the Azores High in particular. (Haigh) Recent decades has seen high sun activity with the Azores High often positioned to force the predominately zonal Jet-stream SW to NE across the North Atlantic to the north of Norway, or thereabouts and increasing water vapour values and cloud cover in NW Europe/Asia: This in late autumn/winter/early spring inhibits surface temperatures from dropping and the formation of snow cover. A sustained period of zonal jet-stream, imo, also increases the momentum and penetration of the Gulf-Stream/North Atlantic Drift into the Arctic basin with rising sea temperatures, increased cloud cover and associated ice loss.
      Then you have to consider the knock on effects of the changed synoptics in NW Europe across the N. hemisphere…….

    • Ahhh; anyone heard of the Wilson cloud chamber? It was far more than a scientific curiosity, it worked so well that it was a mainstay tool of nuclear physics in the 1970’s – creating pictures of nuclear particle interactions which were photographed and analysed. Lots of high school students used to make them as science projects (me included) and I can testify from personal experience that it makes cosmic rays visible as vapour trails ie: condensation nuclei large enough to easily see with the naked eye which means round the same sort of droplet size as exist in clouds.

      • I do recall that and the condensation tracks dissipated as fast as they formed.
        To have the observed effects on climate cosmic rays need to alter the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles.
        Do you have a mechanism for that ?

    • Would like some connection to SO2 emissions.
      As shown in the picture figure 11 the clouds are formed after boat tracks filled with SO2 emissions.
      SO2 emissions have nearly gone down to zero as less clouds forms.

  2. Nope they don’t like it . . .
    In a detailed 2013 post on the scientists’ blog RealClimate, Rasmus E. Benestad presented arguments for considering Svensmark’s claims to be “wildly exaggerated”. (Time magazine has characterized the main purpose of this blog as a “straightforward presentation of the physical evidence for global warming”.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark

    • But Time is a fully paid up member of the consensus and thus has no credibility in rating anything having to do with communication about the climate.

    • RealClimate is little more than a propaganda site the refuses to print anything that doesn’t support the claim that CO2 is the main driver of climate.

      • Personally I think if there were a breakthrough that allowed scientists generally to confirm a major new natural influence on climate you’d absolutely read about it in RC and eventually Time.

        The evidence for Svensmark theory comes mainly from Svensmark (supporters & others mostly non-scientists claim to ‘confirm’ it doing similar solar curve fitting, but that’s mainly adjusting data until there is correlation and then claiming that as evidence of causation.)

        * CERN CLOUD experiment says “in the present-day atmosphere, cosmic ray intensity cannot meaningfully affect climate via nucleation”
        * Other scientists looking for the correlation Svensmark claims find “no statistically significant correlations between cosmic rays and global albedo or globally averaged cloud height, and no evidence for any regional or lagged correlations” and so on.
        * Physically it doesn’t make a lot of sense – “A bigger issue is the number of such particles [which] would be negligible compared with the background aerosol and the aerosol humans are adding by burning things, tilling soil, etc… If clouds were affected by cosmic rays they would have been affected a hundred times more strongly by human air pollution, and the world would have cooled over the past century, rather than warmed.”
        * IPCC concluded “No robust association between changes in cosmic rays and cloudiness has been identified”

  3. The basis of Svensmark hypothesis is variability of the heliospheric magnetic field at the heliopose.
    However changes in the strength of the Earth’s magnetic dipole is by far greater and (as my findings show) has strong correlation with the changes in the global temperature data.
    http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/CT4-GMF.htm

    • There seems to be a strong correlation, but do you have a link to an article, suitable for a lay person, which explains how the one might cause the other?

      • No. It’s my own hypothesis, I’m working on a plausible mechanism but the progress is slow, hopefully I might eventually get there.
        p.s. apologies to all readers for the spelling errors, the above is posted from a small hend held android and editing is a menace.

    • Twenty years ago everyone assumed that the geomagnetic field changes where slow over thousands of years and that large geomagnetic changes were every 200,000 years, not every 2400 years.

      In the last 15 years the geomagnetic field specialists have discovered that the geomagnetic field changes cyclically and that the cyclic changes in the geomagnetic field correlate with climate change.

      They have also found evidence of extraordinary large and fast changes to the geomagnetic field that occurred in years.

      The paradox is what is causing large periodic changes to the geomagnetic field?

      This finding (cyclic large changes to the geomagnetic field) is akin to the finding the tectonic plates are moving.

      There was a delay in accepting the tectonic plates are moving observations as there was and still is no mechanism to move the tectonic plates. The change in the geomagnetic field is orientation, the poles abruptly move and abrupt changes to the magnetic field intensity, including frequent geomagnetic excursions.

      http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/416/1/gubbinsd4.pdf
      Is the geodynamo process intrinsically unstable?
      Recent palaeomagnetic studies suggest that excursions of the geomagnetic field, during which the intensity drops suddenly by a factor of 5 to 10 and the local direction changes dramatically, are more common than previously expected. The `normal’ state of the geomagnetic field, dominated by an axial dipole, seems to be interrupted every 30 to 100 kyr; it may not therefore be as stable as we thought. We have investigated a possible mechanism for the instability of the geodynamo by calculating the critical Rayleigh number (Rc) for the onset of convection in a rotating spherical shell permeated by an imposed magnetic field with both toroidal and poloidal components.

      Recent studies suggest that the Earth’s magnetic field has fallen dramatically in magnitude and changed direction repeatedly since the last reversal 700 kyr ago (Langereis et al. 1997; Lund et al. 1998). These important results paint a rather different picture of the long-term behaviour of the field from the conventional one of a steady dipole reversing at random intervals: instead, the field appears to spend up to 20 per cent of its time in a weak, non-dipole state (Lund et al. 1998). One of us (Gubbins 1999) has suggested that this is evidence of a rapid natural timescale (500 yr) in the outer core, and that the magnetic field is usually prevented from reversing completely by the longer diffusion time of the inner core (2 to 5 kyr). This raises a number of important but difficult questions for geodynamo theory. How can the geomagnetic field change so rapidly and dramatically? Can slight variations of the geomagnetic field affect the dynamics of core convection significantly? If so, is the geodynamo process intrinsically unstable?

      http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/home/files/Courtillot07EPSL.pdf

      Are there connections between the Earth’s magnetic
      field and climate? Vincent Courtillot, Yves Gallet, Jean-Louis Le Mouël,
      Frédéric Fluteau, Agnès Genevey

      We review evidence for correlations which could suggest such (causal or non-causal) connections at various time scales (recent secular variation approx 10–100 yr, historical and archeomagnetic change appox. 100–5000 yr, and excursions and reversals approx. 10^3–10^6 yr), and attempt to suggest mechanisms. Evidence for correlations, which invoke Milankovic forcing in the core, either directly or through changes in ice distribution and moments of inertia of the Earth, is still tenuous.

      Correlation between decadal changes in amplitude of geomagnetic variations of external origin, solar irradiance and global temperature is stronger. It suggests that solar irradiance could have been a major forcing function of climate until the mid-1980s, when “anomalous” warming becomes apparent. The most intriguing feature may be the recently proposed archeomagnetic jerks, i.e. fairly abrupt (approx. 100 yr long) geomagnetic field variations found at irregular intervals over the past few millennia, using the archeological record from Europe to the Middle East.

      These seem to correlate with significant climatic events in the eastern North Atlantic region. A proposed mechanism involves variations in the geometry of the geomagnetic field (f.i. tilt of the dipole to lower latitudes), resulting in enhanced cosmic-ray induced nucleation of clouds. No forcing factor, be it changes in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere or changes in cosmic ray flux modulated by solar activity and geomagnetism, or possibly other factors, can at present be neglected or shown to be the overwhelming single driver of climate change in past centuries. Intensive data acquisition is required to further probe indications that the Earth’s and Sun’s magnetic fields may have significant bearing on climate change at certain time scales.

      http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/BardPapers/responseCourtillotEPSL07.pdf

      Response to Comment on “Are there connections between Earth’s magnetic field and climate?, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 253, 328–339, 2007” by Bard, E., and Delaygue, M., Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., in press, 2007

      Also, we wish to recall that evidence of a correlation between archeomagnetic jerks and
      cooling events (in a region extending from the eastern North Atlantic to the Middle East) now covers a period of 5 millenia and involves 10 events (see f.i. Figure 1 of Gallet and Genevey, 2007). The climatic record uses a combination of results from Bond et al (2001), history of Swiss glaciers (Holzhauser et al, 2005) and historical accounts reviewed by Le Roy Ladurie (2004). Recent high-resolution paleomagnetic records (e.g. Snowball and Sandgren, 2004; St-Onge et al., 2003) and global geomagnetic field modeling (Korte and Constable, 2006) support the idea that part of the centennial-scale fluctuations in 14C production may have been influenced by previously unmodeled rapid dipole field variations. In any case, the relationship between climate, the Sun and the geomagnetic field could be more complex than previously imagined. And the previous points allow the possibility for some connection between the geomagnetic field and climate over these time scales.

      http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/BardPapers/responseCourtillotEPSL07.pdf

      Response to Comment on “Are there connections between Earth’s magnetic field and climate?, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 253, 328–339, 2007” by Bard, E., and Delaygue, M., Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., in press, 2007

  4. Solar activity has been quite steady over the last 300 years: its variation does not match that of the climate very well, so observationally there is not much support for the notion that “the sun plays a powerful role in climate change”.

    • Hi doc, nice to hear from you again, hope all is well.
      For about a week the daily SSN count has been above average
      [deleted] EISN_current-3.txt
      do you think the SC24 has still some time to go; and if so when do you expect it’s minimum or to be more precise SC24-25 crossover?
      Thanks.

    • Hi doc, nice to hear from you again, hope all is well.
      For about a week the daily SSN count has been above average

      [deleted link per request] … EISN_current-3.txt
      do you think the SC24 has still some time to go; and if so when do you expect it’s minimum or to be more precise SC24-25 crossover?
      Thanks

        • Hi there
          Sorry about it somehow I posted copy of downloaded file rather than the source. I’m about thousand miles away from my desktop, the file is on my mobile android hand held.
          FOR Attention of moderator:
          Would you be so kind to delete the entry in my comment above
          vukcevic May 10, 2019 at 2:58 am
          which might be a security risk. Thanks.

    • I think you’re talking about TSI, Leif. That’s not what Svensmark is talking about.

      He discusses it starting around 5 or 6 minutes into the recording.

      • Most of what I read ties magnetic influences to ‘solar activity’ which is usually tied to sunspots and TSI. Isn’t it expected that the main effect is correlated with activity (higher solar activity -> less cosmic rays -> fewer clouds -> warmer), and therefore the effect has the same problem as TSI explanations, namely a flat or declining trend while the world warms?

        Maybe the thought is for TSI we *know* the variations are too small, because radiation is energy which translates directly to temp. But really GCR theory has this same problem. Though clear physics tying them to global temp haven’t been identified, the evaluations done on the hypothesized effect (on clouds) find it a couple of orders of magnitude too small at best, similar to TSI variability being too small.

    • Solar activity has been quite steady over the last 300 years

      Very funny. From the depths of the Maunder Grand Minimum to the heights of the Modern Maximum. It is difficult to find more variability than that in just three centuries in the Holocene record.

        • AB
          What if you calculated the 300-year average and then presented the annual ‘anomalies,’ as is commonly done with temperatures? Do you suppose it would still look “quite steady?”

          How would the TSI anomalies compare to the temperature anomalies?

        • Hi Anthony,
          You are thinking TSI. Svensmark is talking about magnetic activity. Not the same. I suggest you actually try and understand Svensmark’s research before dismissing it with inapplicable data.

          The theoretical basis for the work has been done by Nir Shaviv (2008). That’s also worth looking at.

          Cheers !

        • Apparently you have trouble with the concept of Solar Grand Minimum. We are not in one. And the Modern Maximum, well recognized in the scientific literature is just the opposite to one.

          • What characterizes the Modern Maximum (honest question)?

            “The new correction of the sunspot number, called the Sunspot Number Version 2.0, led by Frédéric Clette (Director of the World Data Centre [WDC]–SILSO), Ed Cliver (National Solar Observatory) and Leif Svalgaard (Stanford University, California, USA), nullifies the claim that there has been a Modern Grand Maximum… The new record has no significant long-term upward trend in solar activity since 1700, as was previously indicated… ”
            http://www.iau.org/news/pressreleases/detail/iau1508/

            In any case it sounds like you dispute the mainstream view on the impact of a Grand Minimum. Just restating Svensmark or some other dispute?

            Jones et al 2011, “What influence will future solar activity changes over the 21st century have on projected global near-surface temperature changes?”
            “Even in the event of the Sun entering a new Maunder Minimum like activity state the climate response is very small compared to the projected warming due to anthropogenic influences”
            https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011JD017013

            Feulner and Rahmstorf 2010, “On the effect of a new grand minimum of solar activity on the future climate on Earth”
            “Here we use a coupled climate model to explore the effect of a 21st‐century grand minimum on future global temperatures, finding a moderate temperature offset of no more than −0.3°C in the year 2100 relative to a scenario with solar activity similar to recent decades. This temperature decrease is much smaller than the warming expected from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by the end of the century”
            http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/feulner_rahmstorf_2010.pdf

            Gray et al 2009, “Solar Influences on Climate”
            “Despite these uncertainties in solar radiative forcing, they are nevertheless much smaller than the estimated radiative forcing due to anthropogenic changes, and the predicted SC‐related surface temperature change is small relative to anthropogenic changes.”
            http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/2009RG000282.pdf

    • Leif, it always helps reading the material or even the outline before commenting.

      Solar activity in this context consists of the changing magnetic fields and the resulting modulation of cosmic rays in the heliosphere. Figure 5 show three measurement of galactic cosmic rays. Δ 14C, Δ10Be, (Delaygue and Bard 2011), Δ10Be ( Beer et al. 1994)

      Where is the “steadiness” here? Not saying Svenmark is right but playing a role does not equal some direct causation of radiation hitting the planet. As such your reply appeared like a classic straw man.

      • John Dowser May 10, 2019 at 1:26 pm
        “Leif, it always helps reading the material or even the outline before commenting.”

        DR. Leif Svalgaard is well versed on the subject.
        He has been following Dr. Svensmark work since he first publish a paper on the subject of cosmic rays and cloud formation.

        John, the Doc is the go to person on astrophysics, he was involved with the solar cycle reconstruct.

        Agree or not, with him but don’t make the mistake of thinking he does not know the subject matter.

        Michael

    • So summer and winter is not proof enough of the role tge sun plays??? No models…all observations.

          • Solar denier?

            Tell me Jack, what is the main driver of Earth’s climate? Are we not discussing climate change on Earth? And why do you deny it’s ability to alter climate?

            Try tilting your head. Did it change temperature?

          • Milankovich? How does a Milankovitch Cycle change climate without the Sun?

            Why are you a solar denier? .1% of a very large number is also a very large number. CO2 cultists claim that a change of .15% in greenhouse gases will lead to runaway warming. Do you know to what CO2 responds to produce warming? Is it tilt?

    • Leif Svalgard: “ not much support for the notion that the sun plays a powerful role in climate change”.

      Svensmark’s report emphasizes the indirect effect of solar variation on cosmic ray penetration and formation of nuclei for cloud condensation. The effect is estimated at about 1.2W/m^2 at the surface over the solarcycle, which does not look to me like “force majeur”, but is about the same order of magnitude as estimates of the CO2 effect. He accepts that TSI variation is much smaller than that.

  5. The paper clearly needs better editing since it many places starting from the abstract it is clearly
    wrong. For example the statement “ An important scientific task has been to quantify the solar impact on climate, and it has been found that over the eleven- year solar cycle the energy that enters the Earth’s system is of the order of 1.0–1.5 W/m2.“ is clearly wrong. I am guessing this is a translation error but it does not
    inspire confidence in the report. Similarly for example the claim is made that the temperature difference between the medieval warm period and the little ice age was between 1 and 1.5 degrees yet Fig. 5 only shows a temperature difference of about 0.5 degrees.

  6. “At the surface it is only 0.2 W/m2 (over a solar cycle), after taking geometry and albedo into account…”
    Becomes – Force Majeure the Sun’s Large Role in Climate Change – in the title.
    Really? Clutching at straws.

    • Que? dunno where that quote is from but any solar panel will net you a peak of 1KW/sq m and an average of around 100W/sq m.

      Except at polar latitudes.

      • From Svensmark’s study. Thats the huge variation over 11 years.

        The title should have been:

        Force Minore, the Sun’s almost negliglble Role in Climate Change

        • That’s funny! The Sun has a nearly negligible role in climate change? Ever heard of Summer or Winter? LOL

          • Ever heard of axial tilt? That is what causes summer, fall, winter and spring. The solar output is pretty constant; it varies about 0.1%

          • The Sun has nothing to do with Summer or Winter? Really LOL

            It isn’t the “tilt” that changes the seasons, it is the angle of the Sun. Without the Sun your tilt would be meaningless.

            How have people become so ignorant?

            [?? .mod]

          • Gator

            The Sun has nothing to do with Summer or Winter? Really LOL

            It isn’t the “tilt” that changes the seasons, it is the angle of the Sun. Without the Sun your tilt would be meaningless.

            How have people become so ignorant?

            I regret that your plain text on the Internet cannot convey whether you are being sarcastic or not.

            Nevertheless, let us assume you mean your exact words.
            No, your statement is not true.
            The earth rotates about the sun in a elliptical orbit. The plane of that elipse defines a “flat surface.”

            Now, five DIFFERENT things happen on that ecliptical plane that control the angle of the sun each hour, which controls how much solar radiation is available at the earth’s surface – and it’s easy to mix them up because they ALL happen at the same time at various different rates ALL year long: Only the first impact is independent of solar elevation angle. The other four affect solar elevation angle, not Top of Atmosphere radiation levels available.

            First TOA radiation changes. The distance between the earth and the sun changes through the year because the earth’s orbit is an ellipse, not a circle. This fact changes the amount of radiation that is received at Top of Atmosphere above every sq kilometer on the earth’s surface every day of the year. (The ellipse major and minor values changes very slowly over the course of tens of thousands of years, but this change can be ignored when looking at only a few hundred or a few thousands of years.)

            Second, the earth rotates about its own axis once per day. This means that, on every day of the year, at every latitude on earth, the sun’s solar elevation angle changes every hour of every day. (Well, technically, every second of every minute of every hour of every day of the year, but let’s not get too picky about details that can be easily calculated and accurately predicted.) In the Arctic and Antarctic regions, the Air Mass calculation is NOT correct by assuming the atmosphere is a constant thickness; it is also NOT correct by assuming the atmosphere is “flat”, and it is NOT correct assuming there is no diffraction. Properly calculated though, an adequately correct Air Mass can be predicted for every solar elevation angle of every minute of every hour of every day of the year for every altitude and latitude of every kilometer on earth.

            Third, the earth is a sphere. Even if the earth had no atmosphere, and even if the earth had no axial tilt at all, the radiation at ground level/sea level on each square meter will vary by the sine of the incoming solar energy at every different solar elevation angle. Over the course of a full year, the far north and far south latitudes will NEVER receive the same average radiation on the ground as the mid-latitudes and tropics.

            Fourth, the earth’s atmosphere is made up of a constantly varying series of layers each layer which has different atmosphere attenuation factors, different individual thicknesses, different average and total pressures, different relative humidities, different dust and pollen and particulate content, and different cloud/diffusion coefficients. In general though, the atmosphere can be approximated as a single “layer” above the earth, but the specific differences between layer content and layer thickness and temperatures changes over the course of a year. Atmosphere conditions in January are different than March, April is different than August, September different from November – EVEN IF the solar elevation angle at any given moment is identical with the previous day, previous month, or previous season. (We will ignore for a moment the effect of a change in local altitude in local solar ground radiation per square kilometer.)

            Fifth, the earth axis IS tilted at 23.45 degrees with respect to the ecliptic plane. (This tilt value changes very slowly over the course of tens of thousands of years, but this change can be ignored when looking at only a few hundred years.) This means that, from October through February, the southern hemisphere receives much more solar radiation than the northern hemisphere. From April through August, the Northern hemisphere receives more sunlight energy than does the southern hemisphere.

          • RACookPE1978, I’m well aware of basic science. Are you?

            How much difference would your points 1 through 5 make, if there were no Sun? This isn’t difficult, no need for a lengthy reply.

          • Gator

            How much difference would your points 1 through 5 make, if there were no Sun?

            100%.
            There is a direct and immediate change in Top Of Atmosphere solar radiation energy and TSI (Total Solar Irradiation).
            Yes, a variation in TSI is critical. Yes, estimates in TSI change from solar cycle to solar cycle have been found, and they are by calculation roughly 1/3 of the estimated total effect of the change in CO2 levels blamed on human activity.

          • … the estimated total effect of the change in CO2 levels blamed on human activity.

            And that says it all. Estimated. By the cult. The cult that denies natural climate change, the Sun, and the full effects of UHI, et al.

    • It’s quite obvious that you didn’t bother to read the article since it has nothing to do with TSI.

        • Svensmark is talking about solar magnetic activity. That varies much more greatly than the TSI and affects the solar wind (particles more than radiation). Solar wind interacts with the cosmic ray flux.

          You need to read Svensmark’s work properly, amigo.

      • TSI == Total Solar Irradiance.

        I forget want the article said, but the report covers TSI and other possibilities. It points out why changes in TSI are not enough to cause the effects seen and goes into the math behind it in an appendix.

        Please read the report, it’s not a peered reviewed journal paper, most everyone here can learn from it.

  7. Svensmark. The Johnny Ramone of Climate Change. Turn the amp up to 11 and blow ’em away Henrik.

  8. I read one of Roger Spencer’s books where he is of the view that nearly all 20th century warming could theoretically be explained by reduction in cloud cover related to the general increase in solar activity, which cloud cover has not been measured long enough to make a judgement.

    I also caught Skeptical Science on the hop once, when they were talking about how the small variation in the 11 year cycle produces relatively large temperature effects, meaning climate sensistivity must be high- I pointed out that climate senstivity could be high for the sun and clouds but low for C02, which they suddenly realised could be true, but then just said that to have different sensitivities to different forcings ‘doesnt make sense’. It never occurred to them that cloud cover can throw all their nice ‘linear assumptions’ regarding different forcings out the window.

    • Roger Spencer” !!

      Do you mean Roy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH)?

    • “… that nearly all 20th century warming could theoretically be explained by reduction in cloud cover related to the general increase in solar activity, which cloud cover has not been measured long enough to make a judgement.”
      >>

      Makes one wonder if the observed planetary ‘greening’ is not a combo of CO2 plus more photons striking ground level plants and planktonics due less % cloud cover (yet a more humid planet near ground level).

  9. Solar deniers couldn’t possibly have an agenda other than science. No, not possible.

  10. Force Majeure, a well known legal escape clause in contracts, should now be applied to any Paris Accord, Carbon Tax Bill, extinction rebellion, etc.
    Galactic Cosmic Ray flux and Solar modulation are totally outside any human control, thus voiding all the above.

    I presume the title implies just this.

    Just imagine, relativistic protons, CCN’s of a few nanometers, and aerosol droplets, have more climate action than all our combined autos, fires and factories. When we look at active galaxies, we should be glad ours is at least now quiet.

    • The .png is for New Mexico. The cosmic ray connection impacts low level maritime clouds and albedo. I don’t know if there’s a connection to NM droughts. Please go into more detail.

  11. RE: First sentence.

    I’m no cosmologist, but I thought Cosmic Radiation emanated from outside the Solar System and not from Sol. The interaction between solar output and the Earth’s magnetic field strengthens or weakens it leading to more or less cosmic radiation on the surface of the Earth and at higher altitudes. It’s why during solar minimums, airline crews are subject to a higher radiation exposure risk.

    • Yes, cosmic rays come from distant events. The idea is that changes in Sun’s magnetic field deflect cosmic rays and that when the field is stronger (active sun) fewer cosmic rays reach Earth. They don’t reach the surface, but muons from collisions high in the atmosphere do, and they are involved in creating the cloud condensation nuclei.

      Active sun -> fewer cosmic rays -> fewer muons -> fewer CCN -> fewer clouds -> lower albedo -> global warming. I’ve left out several steps and other nuances involving sources of sulfur, clean air (few CCN), etc.

    • Cabin crews at 30,000ft a lot of the time get much more radiation exposure than landlubbers, and their health is intensively monitored. They actually benefit, its called Hormesis. Which is why the LNT, linear no-threshold radiation policy is not scientific. Life actually needs a certain amount of radiation.

      The ISS astronauts got a nasty surprise a few years ago – cosmic radiation was ejecting neutrons from the metal skin into the vessel – they now carry neutron bubble detectors as far as I know.
      Their orbit residency is likely a dose limit.

      • Your first paragraph also applies to radon gas in homes. The LNT was used, extrapolated from workers in uranium mines in Pennsylvania. Two different studies showed that there was a benefit for radon SLRDs in the 2-7 pCi/L range.

    • It’s probably not sufficient over a long period of time to believe the Sun is the single limiting factor in cosmic ray flux on Earth. While it is clear the solar wind can attenuate the levels of cosmic rays, implicit is the assumption the cosmic ray flux at heliopause is constant. Why should that be the case? Magnetic fields exist in the galaxy and can concentrate charged particles. If the solar system passes into a stream of higher density, the flux could rise for perhaps some extended period of time. We do not yet have the ability to observe particle density (high energy cosmic rays) in interstellar space. However, estimates of average galactic magnetic field strength suggest cosmic rays pass in straight lines (not expected inside the heliopause or at Earth). Thus, variations in the nearby galactic cosmic ray flux would be due to specific events or processes that may be transient, depending on the nature of the source.
      Found this PDF. Nice read.
      https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/phys/particle-physics/star-n-planet-formation-dam/documents/Courses/Astrophysics%20III%20FS%202018/astro3c4_18.pdf

      • “It’s probably not sufficient over a long period of time to believe the Sun is the single limiting factor in cosmic ray flux on Earth.”

        According to his theory it’s not. He theorizes that cosmic rays increase as the solar system passes through galactic arms as it makes its way through its galactic orbit (if I recall correctly).

    • Cosmic, indeed, comes from “out there”.
      The issue is how it is diminished by the changing magnetic field.

    • Buckeye Bob

      CR means all cosmic rays. GRC means galactic cosmic rays originating outside the solar system. The sun produces lots of CR.

  12. Warren, I caution everyone to beware of Wikipedia for accuracy about anything other than celebrities birth and death dates.

  13. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682611002227

    “A search has been made for a contribution of the changing cosmic ray intensity to the global warmingobserved in the last century. The cosmic ray intensity shows a strong 11 year cycle due to solar modulation and the overall rate has decreased since 1900. These changes in cosmic ray intensity are compared to those of the mean global surface temperature to attempt to quantify any link between the two. It is shown that, if such a link exists, the changing cosmic ray intensity contributes less than 8% to the increase in the mean global surface temperature observed since 1900.”

    “Discussion of the results
    The contribution of cosmic rays to the increase in the mean surface temperature of the Earth during the last century has been assessed by comparing the shapes of the variation in the cosmic ray rate to those of the observed mean global surface tempera- tures. The long term variation gives an upper limit on the contribution of cosmic rays to GW of less than 8% of the observed increase in temperature. It is difficult to gauge the statistical confidence level of this value since the change in cosmic ray rate is rather uncertain and depends on the precise start date. The result is conservative since if we had chosen the start date to be 1955 rather than 1952 the change in cosmic ray rate would have been zero giving a limit of 0%.

    Full paper….
    http://zero.sci-hub.tw/1335/39100e0f1dd730435357db13716ce57d/sloan2011.pdf

  14. You people are morons you are walking past the most important force in the climate change argument. That force is surface tension. Surface tension makes it impossible for water to accept heat through its surface. Get yourself a bucket of water and a heat gun and try putting heat through the surface of the water.

    • “Get yourself a bucket of water and a heat gun and try putting heat through the surface of the water.”

      Warming is not added to the oceans via back-radiated LWIR.
      It instead slows cooling of the oceans to space.
      Same as on land.

      • And thus, the main “temperature” role of CO2 in the atmosphere.
        CO2 acts like a time- delay circuit, slowing IR radiation to space, by milliseconds, at most.

        • No, it doesn’t time-delay it. How would that work? It is the measurements at top of atmosphere that confirm the (‘greenhouse’) behavior is as radiative physics predicts. Those measurements would be picking up the ‘time-delayed’ infrared at affected wavelengths, if that was all that is happening.

    • In North Mediterranean sea surface temperature varies from about +13C in the winter to about +25 in the summer. How come?

      • Hmmmn.

        Now, let’s see you “boil water using the sun” at 5:30 in the morning … 8<)

        • RACookPE1978 Please engage brain before opening mouth.
          I was responding to RMB’s “Get yourself a bucket of water and a heat gun and try putting heat through the surface of the water” – No time nor sun mentioned.

    • Leave the bucket out in the sun for a few hours then check whether the top few cms are warmer than the rest of the water
      Or try swimming in a still dam, even in the tropics .
      The top metre or so will be warm. Below that quite cold.
      A bit of a shock to the inexperienced who dive in.
      The top metre has been warmed by something….seems the surface tension doesn’t keep all heat out

      And in oceans water is thrown into the air in choppy conditions and falls back.
      That’s one mechanism for heat transfer, for both warming and cooling depending on respective temperatures

      • He pointed out the “Solar SW”, or short-wave photons directly impacting and penetrating water will warm it via energy absorption and thermal re-emissions, and where the angle of incidence may not matter much at particular SW frequencies as they don’t reflect much but penetrate until scattered out again, or the E is absorbed into the water.

        What he’s saying is the thermal kinetic impacts of the atmosphere’s molecules do not heat the upper layer of water, due to surface tension quashing the kinetic impacts. Photons being absorbed into the water do it (plus particulates and solutes will also alter the rate of absorptions and scatterings of photons, and not just an angle of incidence or cloudiness, etc).

        • Essentially a straw man argument (imagining mainstream theory claims the atmosphere is warming the ocean via conduction, rather than via radiation).

  15. A thousand watts per square meter of sunlight shines on the ocean surface if the sky is cloudless. A cloud can reflect 800 watts of sunlight before it gets to the surface. Svensmark’s “Cosmic-Rays-make-clouds” hypothesis is marginally interesting but nowhere near as provable as a “degree warmer ocean makes 7% more water vapour which becomes clouds” hypothesis.

  16. Anthony–thanks for publishing this one on this site.
    This is the best popularization by Svensmark that I have seen.
    Yup, it works in the lab and the guys running the big accelerator in Europe did not want him to run the experiment.
    Science prevailed.
    It works on “Forbush” variations in the order of days.
    And Shaviv has shown correlations out to something like 32 million year periodicity.
    With just a BSc in geophysics in 1962 I’ve checked my understanding of this theory with a Prof Emeritus, Geology and a Prof Emeritus in Physics at Princeton.

  17. I don’t find Svensmark hypothesis particularly convincing. While it is clear that solar variability has a great impact on climate in the decadal to millennial timescale, it does not appear to be due to changes in cosmic rays, that on a centennial to millennial timescale show a great dependence on changes in the geomagnetic dipole. Over the Holocene the change in cosmic rays reaching the Earth has been the opposite to what the hypothesis requires, and then we have the problem of the Laschamp event, when 41 kyr ago cosmic rays levels went through the roof due to a geomagnetic short reversal at a time that climatically shows no difference according to every proxy available.

    Most hypotheses turn out to be incorrect, and that is particularly true of hypotheses that are not well supported by evidence.

  18. Well something is happening –

    Unusual cold in Italy – Even snowfall in the deep south
    May 7, 2019 by Robert
    Heavy snowfall in #Calabria, south Italy Monday morning, May 6th.

    Read moreUnusual cold in Italy – Even snowfall in the deep south

    Categories Archives, Global Warming Hoax, World News & Records
    Leave a comment
    Italy – Snow and cold could cause 50 percent agricultural losses
    May 7, 2019 by Robert
    Damages in the millions with the potential for far more.

    Read moreItaly – Snow and cold could cause 50 percent agricultural losses

    Categories Archives, Global Warming Hoax, World News & Records
    2 Comments
    Germany – Most snow in 20 years and more on the way
    May 7, 2019 by Robert
    80 cm (32 inches) of snow since yesterday.

    Read moreGermany – Most snow in 20 years and more on the way

    Categories Archives, Global Warming Hoax, World News & Records
    Leave a comment
    Rave-goers get hypothermia after unexpected snow and cold in France
    May 7, 2019 by Robert
    About 10,000 people gathered at Teknival, a techno music festival in the central Creuse region, were surprised

    Read moreRave-goers get hypothermia after unexpected snow and cold in France

    Categories Archives, Global Warming Hoax, World News & Records
    4 Comments
    Italy – Half a meter of snow and a blackout in Cansiglio and Valsalega
    May 7, 2019 by Robert
    “Here we go again, in less than a week,” says Italian geologist Dr Mirco Poletto.

    Read moreItaly – Half a meter of snow and a blackout in Cansiglio and Valsalega

    Categories Archives, Global Warming Hoax, World News & Records
    Leave a comment
    Record coldest ever May day in Denmark
    May 7, 2019 by Robert
    Beats record set in 1941. Also, snowfall reported around the country.

    Read moreRecord coldest ever May day in Denmark

    Categories Archives, Global Warming Hoax, World News & Records
    2 Comments
    Italy – “Hasn’t snowed like this May for 70 years!!”
    May 6, 2019 by Robert
    “Here in Italy it hasn’t snowed like this in May for 70 years !!” says reader.

    Read moreItaly – “Hasn’t snowed like this May for 70 years!!”

    Categories Archives, Global Warming Hoax, World News & Records
    6 Comments
    Record May snowfall in Switzerland
    May 6, 2019 by Robert
    Breaks May snowfall record set more than 70 years ago. Also, unseasonal cold threatens vineyards and the strawberry crop.

    Read moreRecord May snowfall in Switzerland

    Categories Archives, Global Warming Hoax, World News & Records
    1 Comment
    Austria “Day of Sun” called off because of bad weather
    May 5, 2019 by Robert
    Yesterday’s “Day of the Sun & World Loading Day” was CANCELED due to bad weather,”

    Read moreAustria “Day of Sun” called off because of bad weather

    Categories Archives, Global Warming Hoax, World News & Records
    1 Comment
    Snowing in Belgium – In May
    May 5, 2019 by Robert
    Winter has made a comeback in the Belgian Ardennes.

    Read more

    • It’s called weather, and yes there has recently been a notable cold plunge over much of Europe.
      But, there was some equally extreme warmth about the NH as well, in fact more extreme as an anomaly above the norm than NH cold has been below the norm (apart from the mid-west.) ….

      https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_nh-sat1_t2anom_1-day.png

      But OK, lets look a little closer at some of your references ….

      You:
      “Germany – Most snow in 20 years and more on the way
      May 7, 2019 by Robert
      80 cm (32 inches) of snow since yesterday.”

      Reality:
      “Since yesterday, 80 cm (32 inches) of snow has been added at GERMANY’S HIGHEST PEAK. In the next few days it will snow there again and again. It is possible that by the middle of the month significantly more than six meters of snow will lie on the Zugspitze.” (my caps)
      Zugspitze has it’s peak at 2,962m (9,700ft)

      You:
      “Heavy snowfall in #Calabria, south Italy Monday morning, May 6th.”

      Reality:
      “Pretty heavy snowfall on Monte Scuro (max. 1633 m), Calabria, south Italy this morning, May 6th. The cold airmass has reached south Italy. Report: @meteocalabria.net”

      That’s at 5,360ft or with a DALR lapse rate ~15C colder than air at sea level.
      Using an SALR ~10C colder than air at sea level.

      Snow does not equate to extreme cold – it equates to temps near or below freezing with the presence of WV.

      http://www.severe-weather.eu/mcd/extreme-temperature-anomaly-contrast-central-europe-vs-nw-russia/

      “A new outbreak of cold Arctic maritime airmass will push across central into southern and southeastern Europe this weekend and early next week. Temperature anomalies along the cold front and behind it will be up to 10-15 °C below average for this time, very cold indeed. Meanwhile, a strong ridge builds up over extreme NW Russia. Temperatures in this region will be up to 20-25 °C above average for this time.”

      https://www.thestar.com/vancouver/2019/05/10/bc-heat-wave-sets-15-temperature-records-thursday-more-set-to-fall.html

      “The mercury hit 29.5 C in Squamish, breaking the old record of 26.1 set 51 years ago, while a 141-year-old record toppled in Pitt Meadows as the Vancouver suburb reached 28, edging the old mark of 27.8 set in 1878.
      The weather office predicts the Fraser Canyon community of Lytton will reach 32 Friday, while a high of 28 is forecast in the north coast city of Terrace and the southeastern B.C. town of Creston is forecast to reach 30 by Sunday.”

    • Where in the world is Al Gore? Big May snows in Colorado and early snow in Australia. He has been busy.

    • I’m not impressed, just bad weather, a few records were broken. You shoulda been in New England this date in 1977. I was in Marlboro Massachusetts. I was gobsmacked. My sister lost power for a week. (Snow on maple leaves is a very bad thing for the trees and power lines under them!)

      From the Blue Hill Observatory, a little ways south of Boston:

      The May 9-10,1977 Snowstorm
      One of the latest snowfalls ever recorded in Boston

      Not every significant storm comes in Winter. This particular snowstorm occurred well into the Spring season. The heavy wet snow caused tremendous tree damage since the leaves were on trees which led to a great number of power outages. Even Route 128 had one or more lanes unplowed since the snow removal equipment had long been put in storage. Central and Western Massachusetts had upwards of 12+ inches of snow as did some parts of eastern New York. 500,000 lost power in Massachusetts and 100,000 in Rhode Island.

      The storm helped fuel the concerns that we were entering a new ice age. The climate started warming a year or two later.

  19. Carbon-14 is produced in the upper layers of the troposphere and the stratosphere by thermal neutrons absorbed by nitrogen atoms. When cosmic rays enter the atmosphere, they undergo various transformations, including the production of neutrons.
    The highest rate of carbon-14 production takes place at altitudes of 9 to 15 km (30,000 to 49,000 ft) and at high geomagnetic latitudes.
    The rate of 14C production can be modelled, yielding values of 16,400 or 18,800 atoms of 14C per second per square meter of the Earth’s surface, which agrees with the global carbon budget that can be used to backtrack, but attempts to measure the production rate directly in situ were not very successful. Production rates vary because of changes to the cosmic ray flux caused by the heliospheric modulation (solar wind and solar magnetic field), and due to variations in the Earth’s magnetic field. The latter can create significant variations in 14C production rates, although the changes of the carbon cycle can make these effects difficult to tease out.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14

    The NAIRAS model predicts atmospheric radiation exposure from galactic cosmic rays (GCR) and solar energetic particle (SEP) events.
    http://sol.spacenvironment.net/nairas/Dose_Rates.html
    http://sol.spacenvironment.net/raps_ops/current_files/Cutoff.html

  20. The relationship between climatic parameters and the Earth’s magnetic field has been reported by many authors. However, the absence of a feasible mechanism accounting for this relationship has impeded progress in this research field. Based on the instrumental observations, we reveal the spatio-temporal relation ship between the key structures in the geomagnetic field, surface air temperature and pressure fields, ozone, and the specific humidity near the tropopause. As one of the probable explanations of these correlations, we suggest the following chain of the causal relations:
    (1) modulation of the intensity and penetration depth of energetic particles (galactic cosmic rays (GCRs)) in the Earth’s atmosphere by the geomagnetic field;
    (2) the distortion of the ozone density near the tropopause under the action of GCRs;
    (3) the change in temperature near the tropopause due to the high absorbing capacity of ozone;
    (4) the adjustment of the extra tropical upper tropospheric static stability and, consequently, specific humidity, to the modified tropopause temperature; and (5) the change in the surface air temperature due to the increase/decrease of the water vapor green house effect.
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281441974_Geomagnetic_Field_and_Climate_Causal_Relations_with_Some_Atmospheric_Variables
    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/gif_files/gfs_o3mr_150_NA_f00.png

  21. Galactic cosmic rays (GCR) creates ions in the atmosphere. The amount of ions in the atmosphere changes cloud properties and cloud duration.

    Solar wind bursts also appear to be an important effect on planetary clouds particularly in the 40 to 60 degree region.

    Solar wind bursts (primarily from coronal holes) create a space charge differential in the ionosphere which removes ions for 5 to 10 days which causes a reduction in cloud cover in high latitude regions and change in cloud properties in the tropical region.

    Solar wind bursts can inhibit the effect of high GCR as the solar wind burst will remove ions which reduces cloudiness. Solar wind bursts are primarily caused by coronal holes on the sun. For some unexplained reason there was a large number of coronal holes late in the solar cycle when the solar heliosphere is weak and GCR is strong.

    This review paper by Tinsley explains how solar wind bursts effect the global electric circuit. Eric Palle’s cloud research paper found evidence of cloud modulation in the 40 to 60 degree region which where the solar wind bursts have the most effect.

    See section 5a) Modulation of the global electrical circuit in this review paper, by solar wind bursts and the process electroscavenging. Solar wind bursts create a space charge differential in the ionosphere which removes cloud forming ions. As the electroscavenging mechanism removes ions even when GCR is high, electroscavenging can make it appear that GCR does not modulate planetary cloud if the electroscavenging mechanism is not taken into account.

    http://www.utdallas.edu/physics/pdf/Atmos_060302.pdf

    http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MmSAI/76/PDF/969.pdf
    Once again about global warming and solar activity
    Solar activity, together with human activity, is considered a possible factor for the global warming observed in the last century. However, in the last decades solar activity has remained more or less constant while surface air temperature has continued to increase, which is interpreted as an evidence that in this period human activity is the main factor for global warming.

    We show that the index commonly used for quantifying long-term changes in solar activity, the sunspot number, accounts for only one part of solar activity (William: Closed magnetic field) and using this index leads to the underestimation of the role of solar activity in the global warming in the recent decades. A more suitable index is the geomagnetic activity (William: Short term abrupt changes to the geomagnetic field caused by solar wind bursts, which are measured by the short term geomagnetic field change parameter Ak.

    Note the parameter is Ak rather than the month average with Leif provides a graph for. The effect is determined by the number of short term wind bursts. A single very large event has less affect than a number of events. As Coronal holes can persist for months and years and as the solar wind burst affect lasts for roughly week, a coronal hole has a significant effect on planetary temperature) which reflects all solar activity, and it is highly correlated to global temperature variations in the whole period for which we have data. ….

    …The geomagnetic activity reflects the impact of solar activity originating from both closed and open magnetic field regions, so it is a better indicator of solar activity than the sunspot number which is related to only closed magnetic field regions. It has been noted that in the last century the correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity has been steadily decreasing from – 0.76 in the period 1868- 1890, to 0.35 in the period 1960-1982, while the lag has increased from 0 to 3 years (Vieira et al. 2001).

    …In Figure 6 the long-term variations in global temperature are compared to the long-term variations in geomagnetic activity as expressed by the ak-index (Nevanlinna and Kataja 2003). The correlation between the two quantities is 0.85 with p<0.01 for the whole period studied. It could therefore be concluded that both the decreasing correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity, and the deviation of the global temperature long-term trend from solar activity as expressed by sunspot index are due to the increased number of high-speed streams of solar wind on the declining phase and in the minimum of sunspot cycle in the last decades.

    • “Galactic cosmic rays (GCR) creates ions in the atmosphere. The amount of ions in the atmosphere changes cloud properties and cloud duration.”

      I suspect that this is due to coagulation effect. In wastewater treatment and air purification (or so the theory goes in the latter; I speak from experience in the former) electrically charged molecules (positive or negative) attract and bind together suspended or atmospheric solids. In the latter case, that would be CCN upon which water vapor condenses forming clouds.

    • The CLOUD experiment at CERN has discounted the role of cosmic rays in climate change.

      See my comment below.

  22. The CLOUD experiment at CERN has discounted the role of cosmic rays in climate change.

    Global atmospheric particle formation from CERN CLOUD measurements
    Eimear M. Dunne1,*,†, Hamish Gordon2,*,‡, Andreas Kürten3, João Almeida2,3, Jonathan Duplissy4, Christina Williamson3,§, Ismael K. Ortega5,||, Kirsty J. Pringle1, Alexey Adamov6, Urs Baltensperger7, Peter Barmet7, Francois Benduhn8, Federico Bianchi6,7, Martin Breitenlechner9,¶, Antony Clarke10, Joachim Curtius3, Josef Dommen7, Neil M. Donahue11,6, Sebastian Ehrhart2,3, Richard C. Flagan12, Alessandro Franchin6, Roberto Guida2, Jani Hakala6, Armin Hansel9,13, Martin Heinritzi3, Tuija Jokinen6,#, Juha Kangasluoma6, Jasper Kirkby2,3, Markku Kulmala6, Agnieszka Kupc14,§, Michael J. Lawler15,#, Katrianne Lehtipalo6,7, Vladimir Makhmutov16, Graham Mann1, Serge Mathot2, Joonas Merikanto6, Pasi Miettinen15, Athanasios Nenes17,18,19, Antti Onnela2, Alexandru Rap1, Carly L. S. Reddington1, Francesco Riccobono7, Nigel A. D. Richards1, Matti P. Rissanen6, Linda Rondo3, Nina Sarnela6, Siegfried Schobesberger6,**, Kamalika Sengupta1, Mario Simon3, Mikko Sipilä6, James N. Smith15,#, Yuri Stozkhov16, Antonio Tomé20, Jasmin Tröstl7, Paul E. Wagner14, Daniela Wimmer3,6, Paul M. Winkler14, Douglas R. Worsnop6,21, Kenneth S. Carslaw1,‡

    Science 02 Dec 2016:
    Vol. 354, Issue 6316, pp. 1119-1124
    DOI: 10.1126/science.aaf2649

    How new particles form
    New particle formation in the atmosphere produces around half of the cloud condensation nuclei that seed cloud droplets. Such particles have a pivotal role in determining the properties of clouds and the global radiation balance. Dunne et al. used the CLOUD (Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets) chamber at CERN to construct a model of aerosol formation based on laboratory-measured nucleation rates. They found that nearly all nucleation involves either ammonia or biogenic organic compounds. Furthermore, in the present-day atmosphere, cosmic ray intensity cannot meaningfully affect climate via nucleation.

    Science, this issue p. 1119

    Abstract
    Fundamental questions remain about the origin of newly formed atmospheric aerosol particles because data from laboratory measurements have been insufficient to build global models. In contrast, gas-phase chemistry models have been based on laboratory kinetics measurements for decades. We built a global model of aerosol formation by using extensive laboratory measurements of rates of nucleation involving sulfuric acid, ammonia, ions, and organic compounds conducted in the CERN CLOUD (Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets) chamber. The simulations and a comparison with atmospheric observations show that nearly all nucleation throughout the present-day atmosphere involves ammonia or biogenic organic compounds, in addition to sulfuric acid. A considerable fraction of nucleation involves ions, but the relatively weak dependence on ion concentrations indicates that for the processes studied, variations in cosmic ray intensity do not appreciably affect climate through nucleation in the present-day atmosphere.

    • Further evidence for early nucleation
      Andreas Kürten (2019) New particle formation from sulfuric acid and ammonia: nucleation and growth model based on thermodynamics derived from CLOUD measurements for a wide range of conditions Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 5033–5050, 2019
      https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-5033-2019

      Abstract. Understanding new particle formation and growth
      is important because of the strong impact of these processes on climate and air quality. Measurements to elucidate the main new particle formation mechanisms are essential; however, these mechanisms have to be implemented in models to estimate their impact on the regional and global scale. Parameterizations are computationally cheap ways of implementing nucleation schemes in models, but they have their limitations, as they do not necessarily include all relevant parameters. Process models using sophisticated nucleation schemes can be useful for the generation of look-up tables in largescale models or for the analysis of individual new particle formation events. In addition, some other important properties can be derived from a process model that implicitly calculates the evolution of the full aerosol size distribution, e.g., the particle growth rates. Within this study, a model (SANTIAGO – Sulfuric acid Ammonia NucleaTIon And GrOwth model) is constructed that simulates new particle formation starting from the monomer of sulfuric acid up to a particle size of several hundred nanometers. The smallest sulfuric acid clusters containing one to four acid molecules and a varying amount of base (ammonia) are allowed to evaporate in the model, whereas growth beyond the pentamer (five sulfuric acid molecules) is assumed to be entirely collision controlled. The main goal of the present study is to derive appropriate thermodynamic data needed to calculate the cluster evaporation rates as a function of temperature. These data are derived numerically from CLOUD (Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets) chamber new particle formation rates for neutral sulfuric acid–water–ammonia nucleation at temperatures between 208 and 292 K. The numeric methods include an optimization scheme to derive the best estimates for the thermodynamic data (dH and dS) and a Monte Carlo method to derive their probability density functions. The derived data are compared to literature values. Using different data sets for dH and dS in SANTIAGO detailed comparison between model results and measured CLOUD new particle formation rates is discussed.

    • “A considerable fraction of nucleation involves ions, but the relatively weak dependence on ion concentrations indicates that for the processes studied, variations in cosmic ray intensity do not appreciably affect climate through nucleation in the present-day.”

      In law, this statement is known as a conlusory argument. That is, it portends to be more definitive and categorical than available evidence indicates. Note the time frame claim: “climate nucleation through the the present day” which in traditional time frames is 30 years. Really? This process of CCN and it’s impact over decades is not only known but observed and we’ll measured enough to EXCLUDE cosmogenesis as a factor?

      That’s a large claim with a large number of wholes, rushing to a weakly supported and more likely polemical claim than one firmly supported by actual science.

      • How about the 100 years of the 20th century?

        Cosmic rays, solar activity and the climate
        T Sloan1 and A W Wolfendale2

        Published 7 November 2013 • 2013 IOP Publishing Ltd
        Environmental Research Letters, Volume 8, Number 4

        Abstract
        Although it is generally believed that the increase in the mean global surface temperature since industrialization is caused by the increase in green house gases in the atmosphere, some people cite solar activity, either directly or through its effect on cosmic rays, as an underestimated contributor to such global warming. In this letter a simplified version of the standard picture of the role of greenhouse gases in causing the global warming since industrialization is described. The conditions necessary for this picture to be wholly or partially wrong are then introduced. Evidence is presented from which the contributions of either cosmic rays or solar activity to this warming is deduced. The contribution is shown to be less than 10% of the warming seen in the twentieth century.

    • Check what Svensmark says on this here : https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/01/data-global-temperatures-rose-as-cloud-cover-fell-in-the-1980s-and-90s/#comment-2507868
      Important to hear Svensmark’s comment on Kirkby’s CLOUD Cern experiment : they physically simulated initial aerosol production, and using their hpc cloud simulated the growth for their results.
      Contrast is , Svensmark physically followed the process.
      So again like the IPCC, computer models were foisted.

      Svensmark here from 03.2018 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFlNS2PX4yI
      from 47:50 . Models v. Physics.

      How #FakeNew about CERN continues to be broadcast reminds me of CNN.

    • Come on man. This is science not fight.

      What is the problem that we are trying to solve? What are the alternatives? Observations?

      There is cyclic high latitude warming always followed by cooling in the paleo record. What the heck caused the cyclic warming that was always followed by cooling in the paleo record?

      The warming in the last 30 years has been high latitude warming not global warming.

      The AGW mechanism is a global warming mechanism with most of the warming predicted in the tropics. This is not observed. The latitudinal pattern of warming in the last 30 years does not match a AGW forcing mechanism and for some unexplained reason the warming stopped.

      http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/TMI-SST-MEI-adj-vs-CMIP5-20N-20S-thru-2015.png

      http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/images/rad_balance_ERBE_1987.jpg

      P.S. It is possible to use physical observations to unequivocally prove that humans caused no more than 5% of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2. If that assertion is correct, there is a large missing source of CO2 coming into the biosphere along with large sinks and the majority of the increase in atmospheric CO2 was due to the increase in temperature.

      Observations confirm there is a GCR and planetary cloud cover correlation and there is correlation with solar wind bursts and planetary cloud cover changes.

      There is something incorrect with the above experiment.

      https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-possible-connection-between-ionization-in-the-Pall%C3%A9a-Butlerb/4ad159e3523889be89dce82297271472d4c024bc
      The possible connection between ionization in the atmosphere
      by cosmic rays and low level clouds

      We use a simple model to calculate the climatic impact should the correlation be confirmed. We show that, under the most favorable conditions, a reduction in low cloud cover since the late 19th century, combined with the direct forcing by solar irradiance can explain a significant part of the global warming over the past century, but not all. However, this computation assumes that there is no feedback or changes in cloud at other levels.

      Nonetheless they appear to be marginally field significant over broad latitude and longitude bands with a peak positive correlation at 50 degrees North and South and a tendency to negative correlation at lower latitudes. The correlation is strongest over the North and South Atlantic. Several of these features are consistent with the predictions of the electroscavenging process.

      However, the symmetry in the significance distribution over the northern and southern hemispheres (see next section) points to a physical mechanism behind the correlation. The correlation distribution does become field significant if one looks only at the latitude bands 40–60_ in both hemispheres. Moreover if detrended low cloud data is used, the significances for all cells increase and the correlation becomes field significant (although marginally) over the whole earth.

      The second process, considered by Tinsley and Yu (2003), namely electroscavenging, depends on the action of the global electrical circuit (see review by Rycroft et al. (2000)). The transport of charge by rapidly rising convective currents in the tropics and over continental land masses leads to a _200 kV positive charge of the ionosphere compared to Earth.

      This large voltage difference, in turn, necessitates a return current which must pass through the regions of the atmosphere where clouds are formed. As cosmic rays are the principal agent of ionization in the atmosphere above 1 km altitude, any modulation of the GCR flux due to solar activity is likely to affect the transport of charge to complete the global electrical circuit.

      Tinsley and Yu (2003) discuss how the build up of electrostatic charge at the tops and bottoms of clouds could affect the scavenging of ice forming nuclei (IFN) and cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) by droplets, and how this can lead to greater rates of precipitation and a reduction in cloud cover. They find that the electroscavenging process is likely to be more important over oceanic rather than continental regions and that it leads to a positive correlation between clouds and cosmic rays at higher latitudes and a negative correlation at low latitudes.

      Thus the electroscavenging process can explain several of the most striking features of Fig. 5, namely: (1) the peak in significant positive correlations at latitudes around 50 degrees North and South (Fig. 5a); (2) the tendency for a less significant but nonetheless evident trend to negative correlation coefficients at low latitudes (Fig. 5a); and (3) the location of the peak in correlation over one of the principal oceans, namely over the North and South Atlantic (Fig. 5c).

      • William.

        Strong powerful explosions, like volcanic or thermonuclear, show huge build up of electrostatic charge in the atmosphere at the place, followed by electrostatic discharges, if I am not wrong.

        The catch phrase there I think is “thermal”, not GCR.
        (making sound a bit more sciency, “thermodynamic” electrostatic charge, or simply a heat transfer electrostatic charge).

        oh well, just saying…

        cheers

      • “The AGW mechanism is a global warming mechanism with most of the warming predicted in the tropics”

        No, Hansen 1981 noted “it can be anticipated that average high-latitude warming will be a few times greater than the global mean effect” (observed arctic warming 3x faster since 1970?) Models continue to project that afaik.

        “for some unexplained reason the warming stopped”

        This is obviously untrue according to all data sets.

  23. The bottom line is that more research is needed in areas OTHER that CO2. the AGW supporters are not really interested as it will spoil their “theory” which they assume to be fact, so they say there is no other alternative.
    I think one of the problems is it would not take much solar, cosmic, etc variation to cause a change in temperatures.

  24. Climate science is the worst ever scientific field to exist in a mainstream way.
    It is also the worst ever field of mainstream science in terms of actual evidence for anything claimed.

    I’m glad we’ve not met intelligent life, because they’d be laughing at clisci, on both sides of the aisle, it’s rather pathetic

  25. By bombarding the Earth with cosmic rays … the sun

    Is this a correct statement?
    What is the source of cosmic rays and why do they vary?
    Hmm?

  26. Oh well, time for people to accept the power and magic of CO2 molecule.
    Is not only significantly tied to Earth system, by the incredible influence of this feed back in climate by the CO2.,
    but also it, consist with this indisputable feedback in the means of universal and Milky Way CR intensity and variability….
    magic of the first degree and higher order there, as per means of silly simple feed backs….of CO2.

    CO2 the higher entity or substance, on the celestial order….of things….
    where is the next stop of stupidity,,, I can no tell….
    and maybe there will not be any such stops there, anymore!

    cheers

  27. SC24 is still live and kicking, or is this a dead cat bounce?
    2019 05 01 2019.330 0
    2019 05 02 2019.333 0
    2019 05 03 2019.336 0
    2019 05 04 2019.338 12
    2019 05 05 2019.341 13
    2019 05 06 2019.344 15
    2019 05 07 2019.347 27
    2019 05 08 2019.349 25
    2019 05 09 2019.352 27
    2019 05 10 2019.355 28
    2019 05 11 2019.358 29
    🐈

      • The recent sunspots I’ve noticed are close to the equator and hence should be SC24 sunspots. While I haven’t checked out the magnetic polarity of these spots, that changes with every cycle. If there were new spots much closer to the poles, and of SC25’s polarity, I think we all would have heard the news.

        What are your references to the start of SC25?

  28. Common sense. Anything that can give you a bad burn from 93 million miles away probably has a large impact on the Earth. “Consensus Science” won’t stop until they realize the goal of Socialism in the US. The “Consensus” scientists themselves are the real Anthropogenic component of climate change.

    • Yes- the sun does provide the Earth with most it energy. Since solar activity varies about 0.1%, common sense tells us that it will have little effect on climate change, especially when compared to 47% increase in CO2. a known greenhouse gas. over the past 2.5 centuries.

      • CO2 makes up only about 5% of greenhouse gases, and man contributes only about 3% of the CO2 budget (And keep in mind CO2 is losing it’s ability to have much of an effect at current saturations, which is why modelers invented positive feedback loops). This means that you believe that a .0015% change in greenhouse gasses is a greater climate driver than a .1 % change in solar output.

        How much warming would we see with a 500% increase in CO2, and no solar input at all?

        You guys really have an interesting delusion.

        • “no solar input at all?” monster strawman.

          Using carbon isotope analysis the 47% increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past 2.5 centuries can be directly attributed to the burning of fossil fuels.

          In science mechanism = correlation = evidence of a causal relation.

          The mechanism of CO2 as a GHG has been known for 2 centuries.
          https://history.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

          A 250 year correlation between CO2 and temperature has been demonstrated by the BEST study.
          http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/decadal-with-forcing-small.png

          • No Jack, that is not a straw man. The Sun is the largest driver of climate. Period. You can tilt the planet all you want or even make the atmosphere 100% CO2, but without the input of the Sun you get no change. The seasons are not caused by tilt, they are caused by a minor change in the angle of the Sun.

            You guys have really strayed from basic science, and reality.

        • You might wish to talk to the solar scientists are the Solar Center at Stanford University

          During the initial discovery period of global climate change, the magnitude of the influence of the Sun on Earth’s climate was not well understood. Since the early 1990s, however, extensive research was put into determining what role, if any, the Sun has in global warming or climate change.

          A recent review paper, put together by both solar and climate scientists, details these studies: Solar Influences on Climate ( http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/2009RG000282.pdf ). Their bottom line: though the Sun may play some small role, “it is nevertheless much smaller than the estimated radiative forcing due to anthropogenic changes.” That is, human activities are the primary factor in global climate change.

          http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html

          No one denies that sun provides the Earth with most of its energy. No denies the existence of the sun. It just does not contribute much to climate.

          BTW – In 2019 the sun was closest to the Earth on January 2, during winter in the Northern Hemisphere. It is farthest from the Earth on July 4, during summer. How much different does that make?

          • le, “it is nevertheless much smaller than the estimated radiative forcing due to anthropogenic changes

            Yes Jack, we all know what the failed hypothesis team has said, but that does not alter the fact that the Sun drives our climate. Period. Now go find a new hobby. I hear fantasy football is a hoot.

          • No, the Sun is the main driver of climate. The tilt changes the angle of solar input, without the Sun the tilt would be meaningless. It is all about solar input, and dismissing the Sun is madness of the highest order. But that is what we see in post modern climate science.

            I know you will continue to deny the truth because you are hardheaded and can never admit you said something really stupid. But please, go on denying basic science and physics, it makes you look smarter.

            And BTW, your attempts to make me unlearn what I was taught as a climatology student at a major university are very amusing. I have been studying Milankovitch Cycles (Glaciations and interglacials) for forty plus years.

            If your house gets cold, just tilt it a bit til it warms.

  29. Hello, new to this forum, seems very lively, as any discussion of science ought to be.

    All of the above is fascinating and requires a lot of more of the layman than the average “discussion” in the mainstream media. Not surprising, but it is very welcome.

    However, it would be greatly appreciated by layman like me if posters only used acronyms after the first usage of a term in a post. If you want laymen to keep reading, don’t sling acronyms until you’ve used the full term. Thanks!

    All that being said, my layman mind cannot get past the fact that water vapor makes up literally thousands of times more particles of the atmosphere compared to CO2 molecules. And considering that the evaporation cycle is not easily modeled nor understood, nor is the role of the magnetic poles, chemical reactions of gases to ionization and radiation, isn’t this a good reason to look for alternative explanations for climactic fluctuations? Is my layman mind missing something obvious, or is this just an expression of reasonable doubt?

    Never mind the inexactitude of measurement standards and equipment throughout the last 50 years, much less the times before scientific measurements were a concern at all.

    Thanks for your patience!

  30. I’m interested in any comments, on this video titled, (Fatal) Flaw in Climate Change Science.

    [Spelling error fixed. Mod]

    • The TSI model of solar forcing ignores nearly all climate forcing aspects of space weather AND applies that forcing to the human total. This video shows that fact in a way that anyone can understand.

      After reading the byline above from his YT vid, I don’t have to waste 40 minutes to know Ben Davidson doesn’t know what TSI does, and that he grossly overstates the case for ‘space weather forcing’.

  31. Svensmark’s cosmic ray cloud theory claims are easily disproved by knowing that his ‘cosmic ray clouds’ (see his Fig 10) are actually El Nino produced clouds that he ignores or doesn’t know about. His TSI statements sound more like wishful thinking than actually data-based findings, ie his claim that TSI only provides about 0.2W/m2 instead of the 1-1.5W/m2 needed to warm the ocean during a solar cycle. Svensmark doesn’t understand TSI data if that’s what he thinks, as even weak cycle SC24 delivered above a 1.5W/m2 peak in 2015 vs the 2008 minimum monthly, and he isn’t taking into account the cumulative solar cycle TSI effect on ocean warming/cooling.

    Many of the more general findings in his document specific to solar warming are covered in my TSI-ocean climate work, such as the sea level link. So I can agree with some of his statements, but all the main solar influence he claims for cosmic rays and clouds are patently false: truly owed to TSI. Forbush decreases don’t happen often enough to cause cooling during different times of the solar cycle like low TSI does.

    Svensmark’s theory is junk science along with CO2 theory. Just about every document and presentation about his theory carefully coaches how TSI correlates with climate highs and lows too, even though it’s variation is claimed to be too small, so he and his supporters are always just hedging their bets covering all the bases. I call this the ‘solar scattershot approach’ – throw everything the sun does at climate change, so you’ve covered all the solar mechanisms.

    If TSI isn’t the main mechanism in that mix it’s because they don’t know what they’re doing, they don’t know how to evaluate it, and therefore imo they shouldn’t be strongly promoting another false and distorted climate theory, even if it glorifies the sun’s influence.

Comments are closed.