Svensmark’s cosmic ray theory of clouds and global warming looks to be confirmed

Posted: September 4, 2013 by tallbloke in solar system dynamics

Great news: More confirmation of Svensmark’s theory

Watts Up With That?

Note: Between flaccid climate sensitivity, ENSO driving “the pause”, and now this, it looks like the upcoming IPCC AR5 report will be obsolete the day it is released.

From a Technical University of Denmark press release comes what looks to be a significant confirmation of Svensmark’s theory of temperature modulation on Earth by cosmic ray interactions. The process is that when there are more cosmic rays, they help create more microscopic cloud nuclei, which in turn form more clouds, which reflect more solar radiation back into space, making Earth cooler than what it normally might be. Conversely, less cosmic rays mean less cloud cover and a warmer planet as indicated here.  The sun’s magnetic field is said to deflect cosmic rays when its solar magnetic dynamo is more active, and right around the last solar max, we were at an 8000 year high, suggesting more deflected cosmic rays…

View original post 703 more words

Comments
  1. tchannon says:

    Here is something strange. The paper mentions funding from ” Alan Howard Foundation”

    On searching I find http://www.howard-foundation.com/aims.htm with a Dr Alan Howard, a UK medical charity.

    THE HOWARD FOUNDATION SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH INTO NUTRICEUTICALS SUPPORT FOR DOWNING COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY – See more at: http://opencharities.org/charities/285822

    Does give itself a very wide remit, do good
    THE ADVANCEMENT OF HEALTH OR SAVING OF LIVES, THE GENERAL PUBLIC/MANKIND, MAKES GRANTS TO INDIVIDUALS, MAKES GRANTS TO ORGANISATIONS

  2. michael hart says:

    At risk of making myself unpopular by siding with L. Svalgaard, if his comment is close to half-true then it sounds like it rests on a bit of aerial SO2 oxidation chemistry in the presence of UV and some ionisation. No go.

    I offer no opinion on Svensmark’s theory, but the chemistry is not convincing of much at all for me. I think I was foolish to be credulous of the ‘ozone story’ and won’t be bitten twice.

  3. tchannon says:

    Definite, of course not. Good news, yes, another jigsaw piece.

    Annoys me, “which reflect more solar radiation back into space, making Earth cooler than what it normally might be. ”

    They are showing an effect, drawing any “and” from that is speculation. Nothing they have done demonstrates reflection nor the effect of reflection.

    As an onlooker I can speculate.

    I point out a massive atmospheric problem is clear air turbidity, particularly from water vapour. What data we have is poor, understanding is poor, yet this has been viewed for over a hundred years.

    This is tangled with both incoming and outgoing radiative flow. It also involves ozone, eg. under very dry conditions long wavelength radiation from ozone will be incoming as well as very high outgoing.

    And so on and on. Not a cloud in sight.

    Now what if an effect is mopping up some water vapour leading to a dryer atmosphere? Might be few extra clouds, can we even see this?

    Okay lets really wind up the surreal state of claims about cloud. Satellites can’t even see all cloud, nor can orbiting satellites see more than snapshots, is no complete coverage, yet cloud moves fast.

    You want cloud, I’ve just put up a post with 26 videos, yet if each was a monthly data point, just consider how little is captured. http://daedalearth.wordpress.com/2013/09/04/collated-eumetsat-european-monthly-weather-videos/

  4. Paul Vaughan says:

    There have been a tremendous number of posts at wuwt today on this and on the other wuwt thread on ENSO. I browsed through the comments there. There’s nothing stimulating. Back to the 50:1 videos… (Watts’ interview was a real yawner. He’s off track. I think these 2 might be able to fill the leadership void he’s leaving: David Evans’ & Joanne Nova’s interviews are very refreshing. I had not previously been aware of their capacity. Morano tells a hilarious story about butterfly research ~9min in — so accurate (as I know from my own firsthand experience with funding in the 90s).)

  5. ren says:

    Please compare the Clouds at different levels and sea surface temperature.
    http://oiswww.eumetsat.org/IPPS/html/MSG/PRODUCTS/CLA/

  6. Richard111 says:

    “”under very dry conditions long wavelength radiation from ozone will be incoming as well as very high outgoing.””

    Is there a link to a more in depth explanation of this? Chart I have shows a small blip between 9 and 10 microns and strong activity below 0.3 microns. My layman understanding leads me to think much short wave energy is lost when oxygen molecule is split. For every split oxygen we end up with two ozone molecules which are high shortwave absorbers warming air above the tropopause. I assume the 9 to 10 micron band is standard ‘greenhouse’ effect of no consequence due to low emission factor.

  7. ren says:

    Theoretical discussion is good, but remember that the Sun, which is in the low cycle itself gives us the conditions of the experiment in nature, they only need to observe and record. As I said after the increase in 2006, cosmic rays is higher than in some previous solar cycles.

  8. tchannon says:

    R111, not to hand. O3 has an emission band around 9.6u

    Old but gives a clue.
    link to adsabs

    A search on
    ozone 9.6 band
    will find a lot.

    For fun, anyone able to comprehend this 1969 thesis “Infrared cooling of the atmosphere by the 9.6 micron band of ozone”? Beyond me.

  9. ren says:

    The graph of Oulu show that in the previous 23 cycle maximum cosmic rays was on average higher than in the previous two cycles maximach. It can be assumed that since 2001 the intensity of cosmic radiation increases.
    http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=01&startmonth=01&startyear=1978&starttime=00%3A00&endday=07&endmonth=09&endyear=2013&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on

  10. ren says:

    Satellite images show off the coast of South America, the Pacific and South Africa in the Atlantic zone of low cloud cover. These regions of the ocean have now a lower surface temperature.
    http://www.sat24.com/world.aspx

  11. ren says:

    Ambient air looked exactly like the oceans on 05/09/2013.

  12. Richard111 says:

    Thanks Tim. ‘clue’ link fails but specified search found lots. Not enough personal background to understand all the info. Data seems iffy up to 10 km altitude due interference from CO2 and H20. Above 10 km O3 seems to come into its own but my layman’s understanding is that at that altitude most emissions will escape direct to space. Might be clue to O3 ‘cooling’. And my usual layman question: if surface is emitting shorter wavelength (higher temp) why and how will it absorb 9.6 micron? If surface is cooler from where did the O3 get the 9.6 micron photons? Oh, well. Time for a beer. Cheers.

  13. tchannon says:

    Link fixed.

    ” Data seems iffy up to 10 km altitude due interference from CO2 and H20.”

    Reducing H2O would raise the part played by ozone, which is what I was suggesting.

  14. ren says:

    Tallbloke, let me draw attention to the jump from 4 September intensity of cosmic rays due to the decrease in solar activity. Hunch tells me that if this growth will continue for another week, it’s about two weeks we will feel it as an anomaly in the polar stratosphere.

  15. ren says:

    So now seems locked in the southern polar vortex at 1 hPa, which is 45 km away.

    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/aao/aao_index.html

  16. tchannon says:

    ren, I’ve added more as a post on my own blog, joining three polar effects.
    http://daedalearth.wordpress.com/2013/09/12/high-altitude-atmospheric-pressure-and-ozone-south-pole/

    Discussion can continue here.

    (don’t want to deluge Rog with additional posts here)