• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Svensmark Closes the Loop -- The Missing Link Between GCR's, Clouds and Climate

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,343
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Now we are getting to the long-awaited fundamental debate. Henrik Svensmark, Nir Shaviv and others have identified the mechanism by which solar interaction with galactic cosmic rays (GCR) influences Earth's climate. Their research strikes at the core of AGW orthodoxy, and will surely provoke a vigorous debate. We may be witnessing a paradigm-shifting moment as described in Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.


New paper: The missing link between cosmic rays, clouds, and climate change on Earth

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…
Continue reading →

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.
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).

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 http://www.nature.com/ncomms

 
Thx. I had read some stuff by Svensmark et al. a few years ago and it seemed to make sense. The data was a problem at the time, so it will be interestinf to see, what the state of the arts is now.
 

I just saw something very recently that showed the sun has been entering a weaker phase.
Weaker sun, more cosmic ray penetration to earth, more cosmic ray influence on cloud formation, cooler climate.
Since solar strength is and has always been cyclical (over short & long periods) and historically correlate to temperature fluctuation better than CO2, it does indicate that we're likely entering a period of cooling.
In "The Neglected Sun" Shaviv noted that between 2001 to 2007 the IPCC models halved the amount of impact from the sun ... they really don't consider amplification.
I'm afraid the IPCC is unshakably committed to CO2 and because of that, a few here on DP are too ... the WUWT link will only reinforce their determination to remain flat-earthers.
For those deniers I link to the actual paper https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02082-2
 

Greetings, bubba. :2wave:

I read a year ago or so that the sun is going into its "resting phase," so I guess it's futile to argue that it doesn't need to rest - who's going to tell it no when it holds all the cards? :shock: .... :mrgreen:
 

Thanks. There is also a direct link to the paper at the bottom of the OP.
 
Offered for background.


[h=1]Indirect Effects of the Sun on Earth’s Climate[/h]Guest essay by Mike Jonas “And what might they be?” – Dr. Leif Svalgaard For a long time, I have been bitterly disappointed at the blinkered lopsided attitude of the IPCC and of many climate scientists, by which they readily accepted spurious indirect effects from CO2-driven global warming (the “feedbacks”), yet found a range of…

June 10, 2017 in Solar.
 
Offered for background.


[h=1]Study: finds a solar amplification mechanism by which solar activity & cosmic rays control climate[/h]The HockeySchtick writes: A paper published today in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics finds another potential solar amplification mechanism mediated by galactic cosmic rays [GCRs] (and distinct from Svensmark’s cosmic ray theory of climate). The author demonstrates: Solar modulation of GCR [Galactic Cosmic Rays] is translated down to the Earth climate. The mediator of solar influence…

1 week ago December 11, 2017 in Cosmic rays, Solar.
 
Offered for background.


[h=1]Importance of Aerosols (Particulates): Another Failure of the IPCC and ‘Modern’ Climate Science[/h]Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball I was halfway through the final draft of this article when the study appeared in Natural Geoscience titled “Substantial large-scale feedbacks between natural aerosols and climate.” A useful summary was provided in WUWT, but it failed to identify all the severe limitations of the work, not least of which is…

1 week ago December 10, 2017 in Aerosols, IPCC.
 

"It does indicate that we're likely entering a period of cooling." Good. That should definitively determine whether the scientific organizations of the world are right or wrong about global warming. If the Earth cools off in the next few years, then the scientists will revise their theory. If it continues to warm, then the theory will once again be proven.

My prediction: The Earth will continue to warm, just as it has for decades now, and the political blogs will continue to insist that AGW is a hoax. I could be wrong, of course, and we'll know in the next few years.
 

Yup. Svensmark was predicting the imminent cooling of the Earth nearly a decade ago. It hasn't happened; instead the earth has continued to warm rapidly since then. He's already been proven wrong, but still the AGW deniers desperately cling to his discredited hypothesis.

Svensmark: “global warming stopped and a cooling is beginning” – “enjoy global warming while it lasts”

“In fact global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning. No climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth – quite the contrary. And this means that the projections of future climate are unreliable,” writes Henrik Svensmark [in 2009].
 

You mean to say my prediction already came true? Hey, I'm a prophet!
 
Jack Hays said:
Thanks. There is also a direct link to the paper at the bottom of the OP.
Click to expand...

That link in the OP doesn't go right to the paper ... once in NATURE I did a site-search on "Increased ionization" to get the paper.
I doubt many contemporary deniers are going to even take the link in the OP let alone do a search once they get there.
 

There was warming pause starting around 2000 and rather than revising their theory to fit the observations the scientists in question revised the data to fit their models.
Swear to God. They did that.
 

Fair enough. I clicked on "climate science" once I was at Nature.
 
Jack Hays said:
Fair enough. I clicked on "climate science" once I was at Nature.
Click to expand...

Right. Same here. Too much work for some denier-alarmists here who already know everything there is to know ... and you know who they are.
At least they can't bitch about the source.
 

Look how all the old denier predictions turned out:

(Spoiler: not well)


http://amp.theguardian.com/environm...redictions-stack-up?__twitter_impression=true
 
bubbabgone said:
There was warming pause starting around 2000 and rather than revising their theory to fit the observations the scientists in question revised the data to fit their models.
Swear to God. They did that.
Click to expand...

Pause?

I think you are mistaken.



Oh, but that’s not real data because it’s s giant worldwide conspiracy.
 
Threegoofs said:
From Gavin Schmidt, the head of GISS at NASA:





Click to expand...

Unfortunately, it appears Schmidt is either uninformed or lying. The theoretical and experimental research results reported in this paper did not exist in 2006.
From the OP:
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.
 
Threegoofs said:
From Gavin Schmidt, the head of GISS at NASA:





Click to expand...

Here we'll go with uninformed.

". . . So, how do we know that the sun has a large effect on climate?[FONT=&quot] If you search on google images “[/FONT]oceans as a calorimeter[FONT=&quot]”, you would find one of the most important graphs to the understanding of climate change which is simply ignored by the IPCC and alarmists. You can see that over more than 80 years of tide gauge records there is an extremely clear correlation between solar activity and sea level rise - active sun, the oceans rise. Inactive sun - the oceans fall. On short time scales it is predominantly heat going to the oceans and thermal expansion of the water. [/FONT]This can then be used to quantify the radiative forcing of the sun, and see that it is about 10 times larger than what the IPCC is willing to admit is there[FONT=&quot]. They only take into account changes in the irradiance, while this (and other such data) unequivocally demonstrate that there is an amplifying mechanism linking solar activity and climate. . . . "[/FONT]

Climate debate at the Cambridge Union - a 10 minute summary of the main problems with the standard alarmist polemic
 
Threegoofs said:
Look how all the old denier predictions turned out:

(Spoiler: not well)


http://amp.theguardian.com/environm...redictions-stack-up?__twitter_impression=true
Click to expand...

I note the Guardian does not take on either Svensmark or Shaviv. Good decision.



[FONT=&quot]Using historic variations in climate and the cosmic ray flux, one can actually [/FONT]quantify empirically[FONT=&quot] the relation between cosmic ray flux variations and global temperature change, and estimate the solar contribution to the 20[/FONT][FONT=&quot]th[/FONT][FONT=&quot] century warming. This contribution comes out to be 0.5±0.2°C out of the observed 0.6±0.2°C global warming (Shaviv, 2005).[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Fig. 5: Solar activity over the past several centuries can be reconstructed using different proxies. These reconstructions demonstrate that 20th century activity is unparalleled over the past 600 years (previously high solar activity took place around 1000 years ago, and 8000 yrs ago). Specifically, we see sunspots and 10Be. The latter is formed in the atmosphere by ~1GeV cosmic rays, which are modulated by the solar wind (stronger solar wind → less galactic cosmic rays → less 10Be production). Note that both proxies do not capture the decrease in the high energy cosmic rays that took place since the 1970's, but which the ion chamber data does (see fig. 6). (image source: Wikipedia)
[/FONT]
 
Threegoofs said:
From Gavin Schmidt, the head of GISS at NASA:





Click to expand...

Schmidt is simply wrong about solar forcing in the 20th century.

The Sunspots 2.0? Irrelevant. The Sun, still is.

[FONT=&quot]". . . However, their claim about solar activity in general not varying much since the sun came out from the Mounder minimum is wrong. There are other more objective ways to reconstruct solar activity than subjective sunspot counting, and they do show us that solar activity increased over the 20[/FONT][FONT=&quot]th[/FONT][FONT=&quot] century. So at most, one can claim that solar activity has various facets, and that the maximum sunspot number is not a good indicator of all of them. This is not unreasonable since the number of sunspots would more directly reflect the amount of closed magnetic field lines, but not the open ones blowing in the solar wind. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The two important objective proxies for solar activity are cosmogenic isotopes ([/FONT][FONT=&quot]14[/FONT][FONT=&quot]C and [/FONT][FONT=&quot]10[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Be), and the geomagnetic AA index. The AA index (measured since the middle of the 19[/FONT][FONT=&quot]th[/FONT][FONT=&quot] century) clearly shows that the latter part of the 20[/FONT][FONT=&quot]th[/FONT][FONT=&quot] century was more active than the latter half of the 19th century. The longer [/FONT][FONT=&quot]10[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Be data set reveals that the latter half of the 20[/FONT][FONT=&quot]th[/FONT][FONT=&quot] century was more active than any preceding time since the Maunder minimum. (The [/FONT][FONT=&quot]14[/FONT][FONT=&quot]C is a bit problematic because human nuclear bombs from the 1940's onwards generated a lot of atmospheric [/FONT][FONT=&quot]14[/FONT][FONT=&quot]C so it cannot be used to reconstruct solar activity in the latter part of the 20[/FONT][FONT=&quot]th[/FONT][FONT=&quot] century). [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] Figure 2: The AA geomagnetic index showing a clear increase in solar activity over the 20th century (From here).
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] Figure 3: The 10Be production showing again, that the sun was particularly active in the latter half of the 20th century. The sunspot number is the "old" reconstructions without Clette's et al. corrections.
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]What does it tell us? Given that long term variations in Earth's climate do correlate with long term solar activity (e.g., see the first part of [/FONT]this[FONT=&quot]) and given that some solar activity indicators (presumably?) don't show an increase from the Maunder minimum, but some do, it means that climate is sensitivite to those aspects of the solar activity that increased (e.g., solar wind), but not those more directly associated with the number of sunspots (e.g., UV or total solar irradiance). Thus, this result on the sunspots maxima (again, if true), only strengthens the idea that the solar climate link is through something related to the open magnetic field lines, such as the strength of the solar wind or the cosmic ray flux which it modulates. . . . "[/FONT]
 

Don't be so quick to dismiss the prediction. Please see #19, #20, #21 and #22.
 
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…