Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Clouds Come from Deep Space Too

If this Particle Nucleation by cosmic rays proves out, doesn't it throw a giant monkey wrench into the present climate modeling?

I started several threads, in various science forums, titled " Lightning Comes from Space" citing Joe Dwyer's work at FIT on runaway cascade initiation of lightning from his observations of X-Rays and Y-Rays.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?ch...F9683414B7FFE9F

Dwyer's paper:
http://www.lightning.ece.ufl.edu/PDF/Gammarays.pdf

Looks like I'll have to update them with " Clouds Come from Space Too"


cosmic rays & clouds:

http://spacecenter.dk/cgi-bin/nyheder-m-m.cgi?id=1159917791|cgifunction=form

NEWS from spacecenter.dk

October 4th 2006
Getting closer to the cosmic connection to climate
A team at the Danish National Space Center has discovered how cosmic rays from exploding stars can help to make clouds in the atmosphere. The results support the theory that cosmic rays influence Earth?s climate.

An essential role for remote stars in everyday weather on Earth has been revealed by an experiment at the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen. It is already well-established that when cosmic rays, which are high-speed atomic particles originating in exploded stars far away in the Milky Way, penetrate Earth?s atmosphere they produce substantial amounts of ions and release free electrons. Now, results from the Danish experiment show that the released electrons significantly promote the formation of building blocks for cloud condensation nuclei on which water vapour condenses to make clouds. Hence, a causal mechanism by which cosmic rays can facilitate the production of clouds in Earth?s atmosphere has been experimentally identified for the first time.

The Danish team officially announce their discovery on Wednesday in Proceedings of the Royal Society A, published by the Royal Society, the British national academy of science.

The experiment

The experiment called SKY (Danish for ?cloud?) took place in a large reaction chamber which contained a mixture of gases at realistic concentrations to imitate the chemistry of the lower atmosphere. Ultraviolet lamps mimicked the action of the Sun?s rays. During experimental runs, instruments traced the chemical action of the penetrating cosmic rays in the reaction chamber.

The data revealed that electrons released by cosmic rays act as catalysts, which significantly accelerate the formation of stable, ultra-small clusters of sulphuric acid and water molecules which are building blocks for the cloud condensation nuclei. A vast numbers of such microscopic droplets appeared, floating in the air in the reaction chamber.

?We were amazed by the speed and efficiency with which the electrons do their work of creating the building blocks for the cloud condensation nuclei,? says team leader Henrik Svensmark, who is Director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research within the Danish National Space Center. ?This is a completely new result within climate science.?

A missing link in climate theory

The experimental results lend strong empirical support to the theory proposed a decade ago by Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen that cosmic rays influence Earth?s climate through their effect on cloud formation. The original theory rested on data showing a strong correlation between variation in the intensity of cosmic radiation penetrating the atmosphere and the amount of low-altitude clouds. Cloud cover increases when the intensity of cosmic rays grows and decreases when the intensity declines.

It is known that low-altitude clouds have an overall cooling effect on the Earth?s surface. Hence, variations in cloud cover caused by cosmic rays can change the surface temperature. The existence of such a cosmic connection to Earth?s climate might thus help to explain past and present variations in Earth?s climate.

Interestingly, during the 20th Century, the Sun?s magnetic field which shields Earth from cosmic rays more than doubled, thereby reducing the average influx of cosmic rays. The resulting reduction in cloudiness, especially of low-altitude clouds, may be a significant factor in the global warming Earth has undergone during the last century. However, until now, there has been no experimental evidence of how the causal mechanism linking cosmic rays and cloud formation may work.

?Many climate scientists have considered the linkages from cosmic rays to clouds to climate as unproven,? comments Eigil Friis-Christensen, who is now Director of the Danish National Space Center. ?Some said there was no conceivable way in which cosmic rays could influence cloud cover. The SKY experiment now shows how they do so, and should help to put the cosmic-ray connection firmly onto the agenda of international climate research.?

Publication data

Published online in ?Proceedings of the Royal Society A?, October 3rd

Title: ?Experimental Evidence for the role of Ions in Particle Nucleation under Atmospheric Conditions?.

Authors: Henrik Svensmark, Jens Olaf Pepke Pedersen, Nigel Marsh, Martin Enghoff and Ulrik Uggerh?j.

For more information and supporting material: www.spacecenter.dk/media
Requests for interview and original article: press-requests@spacecenter.dk


Erich J. Knight

Wow, another in a long list of things that affect the climate. Particulate pollution does a similar job. I recall seeing a program recently about how the USA reduction in pariculates during the 70's and 80' influenced African climate and reduced the global cooling contribution so as to make warming contributions more noticable globally in the 90's. Fortunately, SE Asia is now taking up the slack. ~

EK wrote:
"If this Particle Nucleation by cosmic rays proves out, doesn't it throw a giant monkey wrench into the present climate modeling?"

No.

Certainly it adds an additional consideration to future modeling efforts but generally speaking it is assumed to be somewhat constant.

how can it be considered constant? the cosmic radiation reaching the earth is affected by how much matter is ejected by solar flares. For years people have been pointing out how the intensity and number of solar flares there were had a sticking corrilation between the variations of global temperature, but the gwa constantly refused to acknowledge this as there was no decernable connection. now its know.

the more matter is ejected, the less cosmic radiation gets through to the earth. the less c.r. the less cloud cover. the less low lever cloud cover the more heat escapes to space.

c.r. might be realitively stable, i dont know how much it varies, but solar flares are not, nor is the intensity of them. Any model that does not take into account solar flares (and the modelers refuse to accept it as a possiblity, so none of the take it into account) cant possible be correct.

More Earth and Space Weather Conections:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/...ther_link.html


First Global Connection Between Earth And Space Weather Found

09.12.06


Weather on Earth has a surprising connection to space weather occurring high in the electrically-charged upper atmosphere, known as the ionosphere, according to new results from NASA satellites.

"This discovery will help improve forecasts of turbulence in the ionosphere, which can disrupt radio transmissions and the reception of signals from the Global Positioning System," said Thomas Immel of the University of California, Berkeley, lead author of a paper on the research published August 11 in Geophysical Research Letters.

Researchers discovered that tides of air generated by intense thunderstorm activity over South America, Africa and Southeast Asia were altering the structure of the ionosphere.


Erich

erich knight, do you have another link, that was keeps saying it does not exist.

Sorry.........I should always double check.

First Global Connection Between Earth And Space Weather Found

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2006/space_weather_link.html

Dehammer ... erich knight wrote:
"climate modeling?"

If you don't understand the difference between climate modeling and "weather" just ask.

roflol.

weather is part of the climate.

the models they used to try to determine what will happen with the climate over the next few decades does not take into account the effect of the solar activity, because the people that make them have stated that there are no known way the solar flares can affect the climate. If the solar flares are keeping the cosmic radation from making clouds, then it is most definately effecting climate. How are those models going to be accruate if they dont take into account the fact that the solar activity is causing a cooling effect or not by its intensity and number of eruptions.

I've no idea why you are laughing:

http://www-nsidc.colorado.edu/arcticmet/basics/weather_vs_climate.html

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html

nothing there that i did not already know. nothing there to indicate that they have taken into account the effect of the cosmic radiation of create clouds with the climate models.


if the clouds are part of weather, then they are a part of climate, and thus anything that creates them has to be considered in any true model of climate.

I think you guys are not seeing the weather for the trees ,or the forest for the climate.


It will be interesting when we know what % of cloud cover is created by CRs. If it is high, I hope the Republicans won't try to use it to obfuscate the dangers of Green house gases.

A reply from Mary fran, I've asked for her source:

At: http://www.kurzweilai.net/mindx/frame.html
Re: Clouds Come from Deep Space Too
posted on 10/12/2006 3:34 PM by maryfran^

i have read that there is about a 20% connection of cosmic rays influencing the clouds cover, that is a cloudy day increase by approx 20 per cent when the cosmic ray flux is high? so compared with greenhouse gases the effect of cosmic rays on the earth climate is small.

? will this percentage of connection be much higher??

also the amount of cosmic rays that reach to the earth are in some way controlled by the variable and cyclic solar winds. then it is quite possible that humans are not the unique responsible for some of the observed temperature increases in the earth.

Also it is curious that the earth and us are influenced by all kind of cosmological events occurred in the past (cosmic rays from exploding stars, and other phenomena) that make our lifes are running in the ?present time? linked to events occurred in a past-tense-universe.
mf



Erich

dehammer wrote:
"nothing there that i did not already know."

Then why would you post what you did? Knee jerk inability to agree with me when I am correct?

I posted it partially because i remembered you on one thread claiming that it was meterologist, and not climatolgist that paid attension to the long term effects of weather.

then you posted here that you would teach us the difference.

you suggest that things that effect the weather will not effect the climate forcast of decades from now. I say that it is proof that the solar flares have much more effect on the weather and on climate than the climate models makers are willing to accept (if they accept it at all). many have denied that it has any effect because the connection has never been determined before. now we have the connection, so they need to redo the models.

I know you're talking about solar flares above, but thought this might still apply. This quote is from Hansens (2006b) paper that generated the "Dangerous" article. It's from section3.3.3, entitled Solar Irradiance, of the 'Transient' part of the total JGR submission that he then split.
"Ample evidence for longterm solar change and a link to climate has long been recognized
[Eddy, 1976], and solar models admit the possibility of such change."
& "At least until precise measurements of irradiance extend over several decades and more comprehensive solar models are available, solar climate forcing is likely to remain highly uncertain. ~[Hansen 2006b]
~Sam

Hot from MaryFran:

hi
see if this can help
mf

?? cosmic rays. These high-energy particles originate in outer space and in solar flares, and can have a small but significant effect on the weather, increasing the chances of an overcast day by nearly 20 per cent.
Giles Harrison and David Stephenson from the University of Reading, UK, examined 50 years of solar radiation measurements from sites all over the country, enabling them to calculate daily changes in cloudiness. By comparing this data with neutron counts - a measure of cosmic ray activity - for the same period, the scientists have shown an unambiguous link between cosmic rays and clouds (Proceedings of the Royal Society A, DOI: 10.1098/rspa.2005.1628).
"The odds of a cloudy day increase by around 20 per cent when the cosmic ray flux is high," says Harrison, amounting to a few extra days of cloudiness per year.?

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18925365.700

lets see if this works out

when the flux is high, there is a 20 percent change at any one place that there will be more clouds (the radiation is hitting the entire earth), so basically, over then entire earth, there will be something in the neighborhood of 20 percent more low level clouds. As i understand it, lowe level clouds cause more hear retension while high level clouds cause more cooling.

a higher percentage of low level clouds means a lower percentage of higher level clouds (since they use the same mosture).

thus during higher flux the earth stays warmer and during lower flux.

solar activity reduces cosmic ray flux by blocking it out or reflecting it or something, I dont know how this is, just that it is.

corrilary, when the solar flares are high, the earth warms up, and when the solar flares are low, the earth cools.

I know some of the poeple that do the models have refused to account for the solar activity. NASA has found that they can predict the cycles to a certain degree, albet not with any great accuracy. Still a general amount of prediction helps in forcasting the future weather. We know what the cycles are going to be like generally speaking for the next 50 years give or take. refusing to take into account this knowledge is just more evidence that gwa are not willing to accept anything buy that man is the culpret.

Man is the culprit, that doesn't mean there are other culprits we don't know about.
Gaia, as she responds to her victim-hood, teaches us as she goes.

The post 9/11 warming is a great example, after no contrail for several days. (My sky, under the eastcoast flyway,was the glorious BLUE I recall from my childhood)

I fear there may be unknown atmospheric tipping points with GHG's interactions with these new space weather connections.

It will be interesting to see what effect the implementation of the "Open Sky" air travel regime will have on contrail global dimming.

you see, this is the problem. Its very easy to say this, but then in sciencific terms you have to have proof. So far all the proof is that there is some heating and some cooling, but is it a natual part of the solar system, or is it something that man has caused. And yes, i did say solar system because they now have proof that the sun is as much responisible for climate changes as anything else. I strongly suspect (my opinion) the magnetic field is partially responsible, and its been shown to be fluxing now. (sorry this was something i saw on tv, so i dont have a link to any study, if they exist, on connection between magnetic field fluxuation and climate changes.)

So once again its a matter of proving it. News stories written to sell subscriptions are most definately not proof. So far the only "evidence" is models that are somewhat questionable.