The CLOUD is clearing

The CLOUD collaboration from CERN finally had their results published in nature, showing that ionization increases the nucleation rate of condensation nuclei. The results are very beautiful and they demonstrate, yet again, how cosmic rays (which govern the amount of atmospheric ionization) can in principle have an affect on climate.

What do I mean? First, it is well known that solar variability has a large effect on climate. In fact, the effect can be quantified and shown to be 6 to 7 times larger than one could naively expect from just changes in the total solar irradiance. This was shown by using the oceans as a huge calorimeter (e.g., as described here). Namely, an amplification mechanism must be operating.

One mechanism which was suggested, and which now has ample evidence supporting it, is that of solar modulation of the cosmic ray flux, known to govern the amount of atmospheric ionization. This in turn modifies the formation of cloud condensation nuclei, thereby changing the cloud characteristics (e.g., their reflectivity and lifetime). For a few year old summary, take a look here.

So, how do we know that this mechanism is necessarily working? Well, we know that cosmic rays have a climatic effect because of clear correlations between unique cosmic ray flux variations and different climate variability. One nice example (and not because I discovered it ;-) ) is the link between cosmic ray flux variations over geological times scales (caused by spiral arm passages) and the appearance of glaciations (more about it here). We also know empirically that the effect of the cosmic rays is through the tampering in the properties of cloud. This is through the study of Forbush decreases which are several day long decreases in the galactic cosmic ray flux reaching the Earth. Following such events, one clearly sees a change in the aerosol and cloud properties (more about it here).

So, what is new?

Well, the new results just published in nature by Kirkby and company are the results of the CLOUD experiment. This experiment mimics the conditions found in the atmosphere (i.e., air, water vapor, and trace gasses, such as sulfuric acid and ammonia). It is a repeat of the Danish SKY experiment carried out by Henrik Svensmark and his colleagues (e.g., read about it here), and it produces the same results—namely, they show that an increase in the rate of atmospheric ionization increases the formation rate of condensation nuclei. The only difference is that the CLOUD experiment with its considerably higher budget, has a better control on the different setup parameters. Moreover, those parameters can be measured over a wider range. This allows the CLOUD experiment to more vividly see the effect.

The results can be seen in this graph:



What does it mean?

The first thing to know is that when 100% humidity is reached in pure air, clouds don't form just like that. This is because there is an energy barrier for the droplets to form. To get over this barrier, the water vapor condenses on small particles called cloud condensation nuclei (CCNs). Some of these CCNs can be naturally occurring particles, such as dust, biologically produced particles, pollution or sea salts. However, over a large part of the globe, most of the CCNs have to be grown from basic constituents, in particular, clusters of sulfuric acid and water molecules. As the CLOUD and SKY experiments demonstrate, the ionization helps stabilize the clusters, such that they can more readily grow to become stable "condensation nuclei" (CNs). These CNs can later coalesce to become the CCNs upon which water vapor can condense.

Moreover, the number density of CCNs can clearly have an effect on different cloud properties. This can be readily seen by googling "Ship Tracks" where more CCNs (in the form of exhaust particles) serve as extra CCNs (You can also read about it here). It should be stressed that although the results are extremely impressive (it is a hard measurement because of the very precise control over the conditions which it requires), they are not new, just a formidable improvement. This implies that anyone who chose to ignore all the evidence linking solar activity, through cosmic ray flux modulation, to climate change, and the evidence demonstrating that the link can be naturally explained as ion induced nucleation, will continue to do so now. For example, you will hear the real climate guys down playing it as much as possible.

Ok, so what do these results imply?

The first point was essentially pointed above. The results unequivocally demonstrate that atmospheric ionization can very easily affect the formation of condensation nuclei (CNs). Since many regions of earth are devoid of natural sources for CCNs (e.g., dust), the CCNs have to grow from the smaller CNs, hence, the CCN density will naturally be affected by the ionization, and therefore, the cosmic ray flux. This implies that ion induced nucleation is the most natural explanation linking between observed cosmic ray flux variations and climate. It has both empirical and beautify experimental results to support it.

Second, given that the cosmic ray flux climate link can naturally be explained, the often heard "no proven mechanism and therefore it should be dismissed" argument should be tucked safely away. In fact, given the laboratory evidence, it should have been considered strange if there were no empirical CRF/climate links!

Last, given that the CRF/climate link is alive and kicking, it naturally explains the large solar/climate links. As a consequence, anyone trying to understand past (and future) climate change must consider the whole effect that the sun has on climate, not just the relatively small variations in the total irradiance (which is the only solar influence most modelers consider). This in turn implies (and I will write about it in the near future), that some of the 20th century warming should be attributed to the sun, and that the climate sensitivity is on the low side (around 1 deg increase per CO2 doubling).

Oh, and of course kudos to Jasper Kirkby and friends!


Comments

Nir, I don't suppose you could make your presentation from the ACS webinar available for those of us who forgot to sign up? It would be greatly appreciated!

It is great to see how theory is being tested and verified scientifically.
Ever since you brought the option of different explanations to the climate changes in our forum on Tapuz (You are more than welcome to present the implications of this on the forum - I promise a tag line thread!) I discovered how shallow the "science" of CO2 theory was and how deeply flawed the whole AWG meme was.
It is good to see there are still scientists who insist on putting their theory to the test instead of advocating.

Are there graphs of the cosmic ray flux on Earth over solar cycle(s)?

I am intrigued by reports that suggest nobody knows the direction of the source of most cosmic rays:

"A major factor affecting the path of cosmic rays is that they are charged and therefore swerved by magnetic fields. This most definitely affects any attempts to locate sources."

http://cosmic.lbl.gov/SKliewer/Cosmic_Rays/Primary.htm

As you know, Shaviv, I believe the Sun has a pulsar core, for reasons given below [1], and I would like to know what fraction of Earth's "cosmic" rays are from the solar pulsar.

"Neutron Repulsion", The APEIRON Journal, in press (2011);
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.1499v1

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel

At the moment, these results say nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and ultimately on climate, although it's an interesting and novel first step.

I'm trying to understand this controversy. Real Climate has plotted a graph showing no trend in Neutron Monitors from 1965 to 1999 using data from Oulu and Climax.

Using the form on the Climax webpage at http://cr0.izmiran.rssi.ru/clmx/main.htm, I can get a similar graph to the Real Climate one if I graph using a resolution of one year and select to correct for pressure. It clearly shows the 11 year cycle and no overall no trend.

However, if I do not choose to correct for pressure then I get a completely different graph. Although the scales are different (correcting for pressure changes the y-axis to percentages), the 11 year cycle is much reduced and the graph is more complicated.

I found that I can also select "Atmospheric Pressure", and indeed it does massively vary from year to year. ~580 in 1972 to ~830 in 1975. I found this quite surprising especially given that these are averaged over a year but I am no an atmospheric scientist.

There may be some interesting feedbacks; cosmic rays cause clouds, cause rain, causes lower pressure or cosmic rays cause clouds, cause albedo effect, cause cooling, cause lower pressure. Maybe more clouds prevent cosmic rays reaching their monitor. I am finding this hard to understand.

Is it possible that the correction for pressure is diminishing the role of cosmic rays since the rays themselves may be a cause of pressure variations?

Please tell me that I am mistaken and that this is not at all like correcting the speed of my car by subtracting the speed at which the air passes over it :)

Thanks for reading.

This also implies that positive feedbacks to the GHG effect are much smaller than currently believed.

I have listened to many of your lectures... even read some of your papers and enjoyed your insights immensley.

I have gone from quietly accepting the consensus and feeling guilty for living, to furious with the deception that has led to a massive misapplication of resources.

I keep hoping for a paper by Shaviv, Svensmark and Kirby that nails the story of climate for good.

Meanwhile this might be worth a read

http://www.astrophys-space-sci-trans.net/7/315/2011/astra-7-315-2011.pdf

Hi Nir,

I've been looking into the Cosmic link very heavily and found this paper that claims to refute the cooling of climate due to the passage through the spiral arms of the galaxy.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-4357/705/2/L101/pdf/1538-4357_705_2_L101.pdf

Is there a response to this? Could you send me any relevant information?
I would actually appreciate opening up a discourse on this subject with you as I am a Skeptic and would like to get information straight from the best sources.

Thanks,
Cole

which is that they accidentally take the wrong spiral arm pattern speed (they write that they take one range, but accidentally take another one in the actual calculations).