A new paper is currently in press in the journal Comptes Rendus Geoscience, which reviews the evidence for a connection between Cosmic Rays and Climate.
The invited review authored by Ilya G. Usoskin and Gennady A. Kovaltsov is entitled: ‘Cosmic rays and climate of the Earth: possible connection’ is available via Ilya Usoskin’s personal website for free download (as a corrected proof).
The Abstract states:
Despite much evidence relating climatic changes on Earth to solar variability, a physical mechanism responsible for this is still poorly known. A possible link connecting solar activity and climate variations is related to cosmic rays and the physical-chemical changes they produce in the atmosphere. Here we review experimental evidence and theoretical grounds for this rela tion. The cosmic ray – climate link seems to be a plausible climate driver which effectively operates on different time scales, but its exact mechanism and relative importance still remain open questions.
The paper concludes:
We have reviewed the experimental evidence and theoretical models relating cosmic ray variations to the terrestrial climate changes.
On short time scale of a few days, there exists much evidence that CR changes may affect the process of cyclogenesis via the changing transparency and pressure, particularly in the North Atlantic during cold seasons. Although each individual piece of evidence is barely significant, in aggregate, they suggest that the relation can be real.
A link between low clouds and CR appears statistically significant on the inter-annual time scale since 1984 in limited geographical regions, the largest being North Atlantic + Europe and South Atlantic. We note that many reconstructions of the past climate are based on European data, where the CR-cloud relation is the most pronounced. Extension of this relation to the global scale may be misleading.
A relation between the geomagnetic field changes and climatic variations provides evidence favoring the possible CR influence on climate. A study of regional climate variations in relation to the geomagnetic dipole axis migration over the last millennium is also promising.
There is an indication of the climate changes synchronously with the CR flux on Mega-yr time scales, but this result is not straightforward to interpret. Large uncertainties make it only indicative.
Essential progress has been recently achieved in theoretical modelling of both ionizing effect of CR and physical mechanisms relating CRII to cloud variations, but the link between micro- and macro-physics is still missing. A new experimental evidence, obtained by the SKYexperiment team, confirm that enhanced ionization notably facilitates the production of small ion clusters in realistic atmospheric conditions.
In conclusion, a CR-climate link seems to be a plausible climate driver, as supported by the bulk of statistical studies and existing theoretical models. However, further studies, in particular a clear case study as well as improved model development, are foreseen to improve our understanding of the link between cosmic rays and the climate on Earth.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
With even this little bit of evidence, there is already more hard evidence supporting the CR-climate link, than supporting the anthropogenic carbon-climate link.
How long can we keep this swept under the rug? As long as the editors of Nature and Science feel like it.
Al, did you read it? There is no ‘evidence supporting the CR-climate link’ – they don’t attribute any warming or cooling to the changes in cloud cover, and they have no actual mechanism for CR to aid in cloud formation. All they have is a correlation between cloud density and CR’s.
It’s interesting though, and I hope it gets more study.
So much interest in a topic for which there is no physical basis. But utter derision for one in which there is a sound physical basis.
Well put and quite a reversal; your posts indicated you were pure AGW zealot!
What is there to say SJT? An objective review of the evidence says that the CR-Climate link seems to be ‘a plausible climate driver.’ In common with the rest of climate science, more study and data is needed.
The ‘sound physical basis’ for CO2 as THE climate driver hasn’t demonstrated whether the addition of anthropogenic CO2 to the atmosphere has a large or small effect.
Paul, why do you keep claiming that CO2 is THE climate driver? Show me any paper that claims that. No one does it’s a strawman argument.
Saying the link “seems to be a plausible climate driver” is very different to the argument over CO2, which IS a climate driver.
Where do I ‘keep claiming’ that CO2 is THE climate driver – that ‘honour’ goes to the media and watermelon groups. If you can shut them up – good luck.
You r mistaked thair r no cozmics in dis atmozfer!!! All ur warming and colding belong to us! Fatwa against all who not respect Hansen!
Paul – “An objective review of the evidence says that the CR-Climate link seems to be ‘a plausible climate driver.”
Not even close. There is NO evidence that cosmic rays cause clouds in the Earth’s atmosphere. There is NO evidence that cosmic rays, even if they did cause clouds, that the resulting clouds reflect more radiation than they trap.
Cosmic rays, though an interesting study, has not even got past vague correlations yet.
By contrast H2O(v), CO2 and CH4 and the other greenhouse gases have been experimentally shown to trap longwave radiation in both labs and the Earths atmosphere. Direct observation from calibrated instruments show that CO2 is increasing. I don’t think that anyone doubts humans produce CO2. The CO2 in the air has an isotope ratio consistant with a fossil origin.
The enhanced greenhouse effect is a quite mature theory that has passed many experimental and observational tests. It is far more plausible that cosmic rays at this time.
What is uncertain, as you point out, is the degree of climate change that will result from the enhanced greenhouse effect. No-one knows the answer to that however we will know for certain in a few years.
“Essential progress has been recently achieved in theoretical modelling of both ionizing effect of CR and physical mechanisms relating CRII to cloud variations, but the link between micro- and macro-physics is still missing. A new experimental evidence, obtained by the SKYexperiment team, confirm that enhanced ionization notably facilitates the production of small ion clusters in realistic atmospheric conditions.”
Oh, not the models again.
Cosmic rays – ROTFL
Paul read your post immediately above my last one 🙂
“The ‘sound physical basis’ for CO2 as THE climate driver hasn’t demonstrated whether the addition of anthropogenic CO2 to the atmosphere has a large or small effect.”
The emphasis is yours.
Climate modeler’s seem to betray a common history of being pummeled as pimpeled, underweight adolescents. They are sooo effete and nasty.
Gary, no one did very well in science by using how “macho” something is to prove it’s right. That’s very poor logic.
For a good article on models, – Spencer Weart
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/02/antarctica-is-cold/#comment-81522
Mr T – I asked where do I ‘keep claiming.’ The ’emphasis’ is in response to SJT.
Ender – I agree with most of your post. The IPCC claim a high level of scientific understanding of GHGs but can’t put a proven figure on the effect of doubling CO2, and solar factors have a low or very low level of scientific understanding.
Gavin – the unsurprising RC article prompted the post Are Climate Models Falsifiable? via Prometheus.
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002773.html#
Sure Paul going by all the comments, we go round and round in circles mostly powered along by people well outside the science and the practice.
Gavin – We do go around in circles like a dog chasing its tail – CO2 emissions reduction rhetoric to solve an unsolvable CO2 non-problem, driven by the multi-billion dollar greenhouse industry, the real agenda behind it, and hysterical one-sided media reporting of climate.
Stopping all this nonsense will take a prolonged period of non-warming/cooling, which we are ill prepared for due to dithering over building essential, reliable 24/7 power stations because of hyped up fears over ‘global warming.’
Paul; “hysterical one-sided media reporting of climate”
Given the media is prone to sensationalize all current topics, like the US economy, interest rates, presidential elections, Royals on the front line….I can’t agree with you on global warming, green agendas etc. Also energy and infrastructure development have been big issues for as long as I have been around.
I should make this point again; our cultured society is way over the top in its demands.
“Mr T – I asked where do I ‘keep claiming.’ The ’emphasis’ is in response to SJT.”
I have never claimed CO2 is the only driver of climate. I don’t know why you misrepresent what I have said as making that claim. CO2 is a known factor in climate as a GHG, with a well understood physical basis for making that claim. At present, due to our increasing it’s concentration in the atmosphere, it’s acting as a climate change forcing. Cosmic rays are quite possibly an influence, but the physical basis for making that claim is not at all understood. It is made purely on the basis of correlation. And as our good friend Dr Singer likes to remind us, correlation is not causation. (Usually before making a claim based purely on correlation).