Jasper Kirkby of CERN has published a new paper examining the potential link between cosmic rays and climate.
The paper concludes:
Numerous palaeoclimatic observations, covering a wide range of time scales, suggest that galactic cosmic ray variability is associated with climate change. The quality and diversity of the observations make it difficult to dismiss them merely as chance associations. But is the GCR flux directly affecting the climate or merely acting as a proxy for variations of the solar irradiance or a spectral component such as UV? Here, there is some palaeoclimatic evidence for associations of the climate with geomagnetic and galactic modulations of the GCR flux, which, if confirmed, point to a direct GCR-climate forcing. Moreover, numerous studies have reported meteorological responses to short-term changes of cosmic rays or the global electrical current, which are unambiguously associated with ionising particle radiation.
Cosmic ray forcing of the climate could in principle operate on all time scales from days to hundreds of millions of years, reflecting the characteristic time scales for changes in the Sun’s magnetic activity, Earth’s magnetic field, and the galactic environment of the solar system. Moreover the climate forcing would act simultaneously, and with the same sign, across the globe. This would both allow a large climatic response from a relatively small forcing and also give rise to simultaneous regional climate responses without any clear teleconnection path. The most persuasive palaeoclimatic evidence for solar/GCR forcing involves sub-orbital (centennial and millennial) climate variability over the Holocene, for which there is no established forcing agent at present. Increased GCR flux appears to be associated with a cooler climate, a southerly shift of the ITCZ (Inter Tropical Convergence Zone) and a weakening of the monsoon; and decreased GCR flux is associated with a warmer climate, a northerly shift of the ITCZ and a strengthening of the monsoon (increased rainfall). The influence on the ITCZ may imply significant changes of upper tropospheric water vapour in the tropics and sub-tropics, potentially affecting both long-wave absorption and the availability of water vapour for cirrus clouds.
The most likely mechanism for a putative GCR-climate forcing is an influence of ionisation on clouds, as suggested by satellite observations and supported by theoretical and modelling studies. The satellite data suggest that decreased GCR flux is associated with decreased low altitude clouds, which are known to exert globally a net radiative cooling effect. Studies of Forbush decreases and solar proton events further suggest that decreased GCR flux may reduce high altitude (polar stratospheric) clouds in the Antarctic. Candidate microphysical processes include ion-induced nucleation of new aerosols from trace condensable vapours, and the formation of relatively highly charged aerosols and cloud droplets at cloud boundaries, which may enhance the formation of ice particles in clouds and affect the collision efficiencies of aerosols with cloud droplets. Although recent observations support the presence of ioninduced nucleation of new aerosols in the atmosphere, the possible contribution of such new particles to changes in the number of cloud condensation nuclei remains an open question. Furthermore, the parts of the globe and atmosphere that would be expected to be the most climatically sensitive to such processes are unknown, although they are likely to involve regions of low existing CCN concentrations.
Despite these uncertainties, the question of whether, and to what extent, the climate is influenced by solar and cosmic ray variability remains central to our understanding of the anthropogenic contribution to present climate change. Real progress on the cosmic ray-climate question will require a physical mechanism to be established, or else ruled out. With new experiments planned or underway, such as the CLOUD facility at CERN, there are good prospects that we will have some firm answers to this question within the next few years.
Kirkby, J. 2008. Cosmic rays and climate. Surveys in Geophysics 28: 333-375.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
“global electrical current” – and I might add the GCR are simply electrically charged particles in motion travelling through the plasma of space.
Those might be called “galactic electrical current”.
This could be the big enchilada, folks. Read carefully. Cosmic rays blow a hole in Hansen’s AGW yacht. Louis, please, don’t start beating the plasmatic flat universe horse again.
Some older, but easy to digest lay introduction to cosmic rays effects on cloud formation…
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/influence-of-cosmic-rays-on-the-earth.pdf
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/sky-experiment_2.pdf
Wes,
I don’t need to – you are doing it for me.
Wes,
The following link contains at least 400 signers of An Open Letter to The Scientific Community” published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004.
I presume they must all be plasmatic flat earthers.
http://www.cosmologystatement.org/
No, Louis, hardly any of the signers even know about the Electric flat 3d infinite Universe, they all have their own pet cosmo-pups they’re pushing. Pretty eclectic bunch, really.
The 400 “consensus” signers don’t agree on anything more than what they are against.
At least several signers are nutters of the worst sort. For instance, the Institute for Human Sciences, USA, a signer, believes in homeopathy rather than childhood vaccinations, which they say kills more children than it saves, the vaccinations that is..
http://www.alternative-doctor.com/vaccination/index.htm.
Whatever. This is so off-topic.
The forces of plasmas in our solar system are substantial and of some importance to the state of our climate. The push and pull of cosmic rays from interstellar space versus solar radiation seems to be of vital, if unintuitive, importance to cloud formation.
Sorry, Louis, I get more and more choleric when I revisit your electric universe con.
Must… stop… now…
“No, Louis, hardly any of the signers even know about the Electric flat 3d infinite Universe, they all have their own pet cosmo-pups they’re pushing. Pretty eclectic bunch, really.
The 400 “consensus” signers don’t agree on anything more than what they are against.”
But Louis is on it 😉
I don’t believe I’ve ever seen Louis’ specific objections to solar-wind protons as a source of cloud nucleation.
I get the impression of scatter-gun animosity but little else.
Gary,
Quite correct – I have zero objections to the cosmic ray theory but what I do point out is that cosmic rays are actually enormous electric currents (charges in motion).
It’s the electrical solar circuit and the input from cosmic rays and the electromagnetic behaviour of the sun that are most likely the principal driving force of the earth’s climate.
The scatter-gun animosity can be dismissed as cohnitive dissonance.
Wes
“The forces of plasmas in our solar system are substantial and of some importance to the state of our climate. The push and pull of cosmic rays from interstellar space versus solar radiation seems to be of vital, if unintuitive, importance to cloud formation”.
Thius is essentially the position of the The Plasma Universe (also known as the electric universe).
So I suggest your comment might be regarded as a non sequitur.
Correction – cogntitive dissonance.
I read that as cohenite dissonance.
No, cognitive – though the though crossed my mind when I saw it.
There is a new web resource explaining electric galaxies here:
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=2m1r5m3b
It is written by a plasma physicist and based on the theorey of a Plasma Universe enunciated by Nobel Laureate Hannes Alfven and his successors.
Hopefully some insights on cosmic rays and their part in this system will be explained.
Louis, You failed to show that the electric universe hypothesis (see The Electric Universe parts 1,2,3 in May 2008) does little more than explain auroras and other plasma states and that’s something considerably less than a working, predictive, holistic cosmological paradigm that knocks the socks off the dominant thrust of modern astrophysics. Frustrated, you cite complaint petitions signed by a homeopath and other assorted disenfranchised malcontents. That’s evidence of lack of evidence.
Meanwhile, there is nothing “dissonant” between contemporary astrophysics and plasma clouds, which may well be an important driving force in the Earth’s climate. Acknowledging that plasma states are common and important in the universe isn’t a new observation nor does it amount to a new cosmological paradigm.
Now you are again misrepresenting Hannes Alfven’s rather nuanced mainstream point of view as supporting your radical flat universe, with no time space continuum. I think he would object to the company you keep.
Moreover, quack cosmology has nothing to do with the comparatively mundane physics involved with cosmic rays, solar wind and cloud formation. It’s a non sequitur, as you might say.
Wes, why can you not just disagree and debate in a polite way? Why do you churlishly mock? If you think an argument is weak or unfouded should you not maturely walk away? Apeal t “concensus” in itself is never the mark of good scientific argument. Enquiring minds need to question, however unfounded thi might seem to those who are happy to rely on “the expert witness”.
Wes,
Your statements are in error, because Anthony Peratt has already done that in his “The Physics of the Plasma Universe”, and a perusal of the web link to Wal Thornhill’s explanation of electric galaxies is, to most, sufficient evidence that plasma universe theory is a workable discipline.
The Electric universe thread was simply to supply pointer to the published literature of The Plasma Universe, at Jennifer’s request.
I do note you seem to have an incomplete understanding of Hannes Alven’s work, but all I wrote on that thread was essentially taken from Dr. Don Scott’s book “The Electric Sky”.
As Tony Peratt wrote in his endoresement:
“It is gratifying to see the work of my mentor, Nobel Laureate Hannes Alfvén enumerated with such clarity. I am also pleased to see that Dr. Scott has given general readers such a lucid and understandable summary of my own work.”
– Anthony L. Peratt, PhD, USC, Fellow of the IEEE (1999), former scientific advisor to the U.S. Department of Energy and member of the Associate Laboratory Directorate of the Los Alamos National Laboratory. He is the author of Physics of the Plasma Universe and numerous published papers.
Wes, it is not my redical flat universe, it is Birkeland’s, Alven’s, Langmuire’s, Peratt’s, etc.
As Rick Rogerson casusally mentioned my presence as a contributor on this site (he mentioned nothing about the content, as he would), plus Mr T’s previous comments here raised elsewhere, one might wonder if another agenda is being pursued.
Some lefty geoscience academics have previously tried to have me sacked as editor of AIG News for my climate sceptical editorial position (A political position many AIG members have complimented me for). Their putsch failed miserably but I am under no illusion that they are still campaigning to have me removed by the next ploy – destroying my professional reputation as a scientist.
I might be permitted to consider the possibility that your posts might be part of this ongoing vendetta.
Dismissing Peratt’s theories as quack cosmology simply tells us what your real motives are.
Of course I could be totally wrong and deduce that your churlish mocking is nothing more sinister than severe cognitive dissonance on your part.
Wes, time is motion and has no dimensions. i.e. time is a property of dimension or a derivative so that we can measure motion in the dimension.
Length, width, and depth are real spacial dimensions whether we define them or not.
Just because our minds can develop abstract concepts doesn’t mean they actually exist. That’s where models as such need to wake up. But Wes we’ll let you waste your time seeking them if that’s any help. Also, i’m wondering if you can respond to “When i regard the idea of nothingness as just that, an idea, can i enquire who or how or what gives you the evidence to the contrary?”
Keiran,
thanks for your support, appreciated, but time is an abstraction, simply a human intepretation of a periodical observation.
Thank you, Louis, for the clarification. I am relieved.
I have no idea what Louis and Wes are jimmer jammering about, but I think they should get a ‘room’ since it all seems to be off topic to me.
I have a question about galactic cosmic rays. I recall hearing about them in the great global warming swindle video. I seem to recall it said that GCR can be used to predict weather. Since the time scale can be days or millenia, is there anyone who is using GCRs to predict weather or climate?
John M Reynolds
Louis, i was just responding to Wes’s comment “your radical flat universe, with no time space continuum.” He has certainly set out to target you for posing some “radical” questions and thoughts. Very much his agenda i’d say … he hasn’t so much as attempted a response to anything i have simply put to him that relate to his paradoxical ideas. e.g. When you see paradoxes you also get the associated erroneous assumptions. Wes’s ego seems to have a problem with infinity but for myself from when i was about thirteen years old i have humbly understood infinity as the very reason for the existence of the universe.
Back to galactic cosmic rays.
When attempting to understand solar influences on earth’s climate, i feel we need to understand that sunnyboy interacts with our planet in a wide variety of complex ways and almost certainly that all these factors are influencing our lovely planet, even though we don’t fully understand how. e.g. It is not only the cyclic warming and cooling of the sun, but others that we have little understanding of like changes with cosmic rays, changes in the solar spectrum towards greater ultra-violet radiation when compared with visible or infra-red light … also geomagnetic activity which has doubled and been in an uptrend for over 100 years. What does this mean?
As far as galactic cosmic rays modulating cloudiness most people would be aware that Svensmark puts forward some lab experiments and graphs indicating a fair degree of correlation of cosmic-ray intensities with low-level cloud cover. Plus he seems to show some evidence that the earth’s climate responds to variations in cloud cover that predicts the contrary behaviour of Antarctica.
To my way of thinking the cosmic-ray and cloud-forcing hypothesis needs more work but is quite interesting because it raises a number of questions. The first question for me is the data that Svensmark uses. Where do we get this accurate data on low-level cloudiness and how and where is the data for cosmic ray intensity?
Keiran and others,
Thanks for your kind comments.
In terms of Wes George, that issue is water under the bridge and we should leave it there.
In terms of cosmic rays, (generally protons), think in terms of electric currents, not mysterious rays.
John M Reynolds
It is indeed off topic, much so.
However, I seem to have thwarted it, for the time being, and let’s get back to topic.
Now, I am not sure about this but Piers Corbyn has been succussfuly predicting weather on solar factors. I’m not sure whether he factors in cosmic rays in his modelling, (and there are no theories on this either).
Perhaps ask him?
The idea of inter planetary current flows and the possibility of inter galactic electrical current brings to mind an article I read some years ago about an engineer for RCA radio coming up with a study on radio propagation and the position of the planets. In the 1930’s most overseas telephone traffic was handled by short wave radio. Radio engineers were obsessed with radio propagation like ham radio operators (I being one of them) are today. Needless to say his ideas were rejected by almost everybody, calling it a sort of radio astrology. This article has stuck with me and this discussion has provided the possibility of a mechanism for this to take place.
I have tried to find a copy of this paper, but have never been able to find one. His name was Nelson or Nielson and other than the article in this Ham Radio magazine I have not seen any reference to it.
Louis, yes rays, beams, winds, etc are really only descriptions and are not causal like electric currents or are we talking electric waves?
Svensmark uses particular data and i’m just wondering about where he gets this accurate data on low-level cloudiness and “cosmic ray” intensity?