Chapter 3: It's a shame about ray
Gordon Hirst
Contract Engineer: Mechanical Design/Development and Manufacturing Engineer; proficient in SolidWorks, Inventor & AutoCAD. Flexible working arrangements. #DESIGNDEVELOPMENTENGINEER. Chair of SSAB working group
Dr. Henrik Svensmark is is a physicist and professor with the Division of Solar System Physics at the Danish National Space institute in Copenhagen. Whilst undoubtedly Professor Svensmark has had a long and illustrious career in physics, he is probably best known for his theory of cosmoclimatology. The hypotheses of cosmoclimatology attributes variations in Earth's climate to solar radiation emanating from cosmic rays, known in astrophysics circles as Galactic Cosmic Rays or GCR's. The theory was first developed in the late 90's following initial work from Svensmark's future colleague, the then director of the Director of the Danish National Space institute, Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen. In 1991 Friis-Christensen along with his colleague Knud Lassen published a paper in the journal Science which demonstrated that there had been a remarkable correlation to global temperatures and intensity of cosmic rays for a period spanning 130 years.(1)
It was postulated that this correlation showed there was a strong, if somewhat complex physical relationship between the amount of Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR) reaching the Earth's atmosphere and the global climate. Svensmark and Friis-Christensen went public with their hypotheses with the publication of their landmark 1997 paper. "Variation of cosmic ray flux and global cloud coverage: a missing link in solar-climate relationships"(2)
Hypotheses
We are all aware of the fact that solar irradiation we receive from the sun is one of the main drivers of Earth's climate, this has never been disputed, but Friis-Christensen and Svensmark hypothesised that solar activity also has a secondary, more subtle influence which they believe is just as important as solar irradiation. This is a series of complex physical relationships and it must be said that it very much out of left field in climate theory. Svensmark's and Friis-Christensen's theory of cosmic rays and cloud formation relies on essentially four interlocking physical principles.
Principal I:
Cosmic rays are electrically charged atomic particles consisting mainly of protons but do contain a smaller fraction of heavier atomic nuclei. They are emitted from catastrophic cosmic events such as exploding stars emanating millions of light years away. The cosmic rays travel outwards in all directions at close to the speed of light. Before these cosmic rays can reach Earth they need to penetrate a magnetic bubble generated by our sun, the heliosphere, which large enough to embrace all the planets in the solar system. This is a proven phenomenon so there is no dispute over its veracity.(3)
Principal II:
Also not disputed and well understood is the magnetic activity in the heliosphere does vary dependent on the amount of solar activity (sun spots) from our sun which follows, roughly, an 11 year cycle. When sun spot activity is high there is an increase the intensity of the magnetic field which will deflect more of the cosmic rays entering the solar system, thus reducing the number hitting Earth.(1) From observations Friis-Christensen, Lassen and later Svensmark concluded that the sun spot cycle had been steadily decreasing and is now several months shorter than it was at the end of the 19th century. Astrophysicists agree that shorter solar cycles imply more solar activity, which in turn means that less solar radiation reaches the Earth.(2)
Principal III:
The next part of the theory presented by Friis-Christesen and Svensmark is the most contentious, and proposes that cloud formations, particularly at low level clouds, are mainly governed by the amount of cosmic rays penetrating the Earth's atmosphere.Suggesting clouds are more likely to form when solar activity is at its lowest and allowing more Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR) to reach Earth. They suggest that the cosmic rays electrical charge causes ionisation of tiny particles of atmospheric aerosols. This in turn would encourage the particles to clump together to form particles large enough for cloud droplets to form around, called “cloud condensation nuclei”. (3)(4)
Principal IV:
Clouds form an integral part of the Earths weather and climate system, anything that would disturb the elegant natural cycle of cloud formations could have catastrophic consequences for the planets climate. Climatically clouds perform a duel role, because of their whiteness, they reflect solar irradiation back out into space, known as the 'albedo effect'(5), at the same time they absorb some of the irradiated heat bouncing back off the surface. However absorption is at a different frequency than other greenhouse gases so is not as an effective insulator (more of this in Chapter 4). Svensmark & Friis- Christensen hypothesised because there is less GCR reaching Earth during high solar activity, this is reducing the troposphere's ability to form clouds. In essence; If the amount of cosmic rays penetrating Earth's atmosphere was decreasing this would lead to a decline in low cloud formation and hence a reduction in the Earths ability to reflect the suns irradiation, therefore causing global warming (6).
To surmise: when all these four principals are accumulated it proposed that there is a direct relationship to the suns solar activity and Earth's climate via the control of cloud formation.
At the time it was a revelation and was picked up by all the climate science sceptics, political lobbyist, and politicians who rejected the more common AGW consensus. However the crucial missing link needed to be validated, that being the hypothetical concept that the ionized nuclei resulting from cosmic rays was indeed responsible for governing cloud formations. This required experimentation. This initial experiment at the DTU using an 8m3 reaction chamber with mixed results (7); following this; with the support of some notable dignitaries in the world of Physics such Nigel Calder, the former editor of New Scientist magazine a much grander experiment conducted at the CERN research centre, at an estimated cost of €1.5M (approx $USD1.35M at the time). (8)(9)
Jasper Kirkby and Frank Close of CERN, the European Laboratory for Particle Physics in Switzerland, hope to perform experiments that will answer at least some of these questions. Their idea is to re-create the conditions of the upper atmosphere in a cloud chamber—a piece of kit common in particle physics labs. They would fill the chamber with mixtures of gases and cloud-forming nuclei characteristic of different heights in the atmosphere and then blast them with CERN particle beams, which stand in for cosmic rays(10)
The great unraveling:
Unraveling one:
Even before the start of the CERN CLOUD experiment things were starting to unravel. There was a storm of controversy erupting as early as 2009 when the Danish scientist and professor Emeritus of Physics, from the Technical University of Denmark, Peter Laut, challenged the Friis-Christensen's published work, concluding that the evidence they presented in their 1991 paper was flawed (11).
The challenges were further amplified the same year when a group of scientists, including one Nobel laureate, on a further examination of the papers data, concluded that the graphs published in the paper showing apparent correlations between global warming, sunspots and cosmic rays were erroneous. Friis-Christensen agreed that any correlation between sunspots and global warming that he may have identified in the 1991 study has since broken down. There is, he said, a clear "divergence" between the sunspots and global temperatures after 1986, which shows that the present warming period cannot be explained by solar activity alone
Unraveling Two:
In 2007 Michael Le Page and Fred Pearce wrote in the New Scientist:
"There is no convincing evidence that cosmic rays are a major factor determining cloud cover. Cloud physicists say it has yet to be shown that such clumping occurs, and even if it does, it seems far-fetched to expect any great effect on the amount of clouds in the atmosphere. Most of the atmosphere, even relatively clean marine air, has plenty of cloud condensation nuclei already".(12)
Bart Verheggen, Department of Air Quality and Climate Change , Energy research Institute of the Netherlands (ECN) in realcliamte.org 2009
"The potential effects of galactic cosmic rays (GCR) can only be very crudely estimated. A recent study found that a change in GCR intensity, as is typically observed over an 11 year solar cycle, could, at maximum, cause a change of 0.1% in the number of CCN. This is likely to be far too small to make noticeable changes in cloud properties"(13)
In 2015 Tsonis et al observed:
"Despite a gross correlation, we find no measurable evidence of a causal effect linking CR to the overall 20th-century warming trend. However, on short interannual timescales, we find a significant, although modest, causal effect between CR and short-term, year-to-year variability in global temperature that is consistent with the presence of nonlinearities internal to the system"(14)
And finally................
In 2016; Dunne et al presented their main outcomes of the 10 years of results obtained at the CLOUD experiment performed at CERN
"A considerable fraction of nucleation involves ions, but the relatively weak dependence on ion concentrations indicates that for the processes studied, variations in cosmic ray intensity do not appreciably affect climate through nucleation in the present-day atmosphere"(15)
Unraveling three:
It has been over 25 years since Svensmark and Friis-Christensen first floated the GCR/cloud formation theory. Of course in this time scientist have continued to monitor the intensity of GCR's being received by the Earth's atmosphere and they have shown a definitive trend downwards, whilst temperatures have risen constantly, effectively disproving the theory.(16)
source NOAA NCDC,
"Following Svensmark's mechanism, it seems that any cosmic ray explanation of current global warming can be ruled out," Egill Kristjansson; Professor of Meteorology, University of Oslo said.(9)
In the parlance of a popular TV show; The cosmic ray – cloud formation theory is:
Of course the understanding of the cosmological mechanisms at work behind all this is beyond anyone who is not well versed in the workings of theoretical physics, so for a layperson to agree or disagree with the hypotheses would be like a dog figuring out a card trick. We do have to rely on those who have the onions to make definitive judgements regarding; the theoretical science, the observations of natural phenomena and the design and application of complex experiments. Therefore the only people who have the real say are the scientists, if you don't fully understand the science, it is just opinion. As science is the world of measurable, repeatable and demonstrable observations, at some point the hypotheses will either take wings and fly, or crumble into dust. Theories which turn out to be correct tend to gain momentum, even if they are paradigm shifting. Although they may receive initial intransigence, they do eventually overcome this as the theory gains more credibility and as an overwhelming preponderance of evidence to backs it up.
Henrik Svensmark as described in Climate Change: The Facts as one of the 'fiercely independent thinkers' but in truth is very much an outlier in this field, with very few in the science community still adhering to his hypotheses. However, he has continued undeterred and continues to promote his theory to this day.
As late as 2018 in an interview with the UK climate sceptic organisation, Global Warming Policy Foundation, in their video (The Connection between Cosmic Rays, Clouds and Climate) Svensmark claimed “We expect that solar activity should cool the Earth, and it could actually be why the temperatures are not increasing. I mean, they haven't been increasing for the past twenty years,” (17)
Which of course is completely untrue (18)
Source NoAA:climate.gov
And now he has a chapter in Climate Change: The Facts 2020
Conclusions
In the scientific community, Svensmark is ploughing a very lonely furrow with only a handful of supporters. Needless to say he is still the poster boy for those in the climate sceptic community, media pundits, politicians and political lobbyist such as the UK's GWPR and the US Heritage Foundation.
"It is an elaborate idea and its sophistication is often lost on the many lay apologists of climate scepticism" – The Independent "Sun sets on sceptics case against climate change" – 2009 (9)
Why he does this only he can answer, but appears to have made peace with himself for doing this.
It is very important that scientists are given the freedom to create and publish hypotheses, and receive the backing of their institutions both moral and material; any form scientific censoring is an anathema to the discipline. In Svensmark's defence he never shied away from following the due scientific process via peer reviewed publication and let's be honest if he was right, our understanding of climate change and its causes and our actions to combat this huge existential threat would be totally different.
Should Marohasy include in Climate Change: The Facts 2020 ? absolutely; however no attempt was made to counter any of Svensmark's disproven claims which makes the chapter in a tome which has the words 'The Facts' in its title is misleading at best.
References
1. Length of the Solar Cycle: An Indicator of Solar Activity Closely Associated with Climate; Eigil Friis-Christensen Knud Lassen ;1991
2. Variation of cosmic ray flux and global cloud coverage—a missing link in solar-climate relationships: Henrik Svensmark, Eigil Friis-Christensen; 1997
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364682697000011
3. Galactic Cosmic Rays Space Weather Prediction Center NOAA.Com
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/phenomena/galactic-cosmic-rays
4. News Scientist Sunnyside up Fred Pearce November 1998
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15921425-400-sunny-side-up/#ixzz6gA0ISHnR
5. Reflectance and albedo, surface; J A Coakley, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA
https://curry.eas.gatech.edu/Courses/6140/ency/Chapter9/Ency_Atmos/Reflectance_Albedo_Surface.pdf
6. Physicists claim further evidence of link between cosmic rays and cloud formation Physics world 2013
https://physicsworld.com/a/physicists-claim-further-evidence-of-link-between-cosmic-rays-and-cloud-formation/
7. Experimental evidence for the role of ions in particle nucleation under atmospheric conditions; svensmak et al 2006
8. From cosmic rays to clouds 2019:A new run of the CLOUD experiment examines the direct effect of cosmic rays on clouds
https://physicsworld.com/a/physicists-claim-further-evidence-of-link-between-cosmic-rays-and-cloud-formation/
9. Sun sets on sceptics' case against climate change independent 2009
10. A new run of the CLOUD experiment examines the direct effect of cosmic rays on clouds
https://home.cern/news/news/experiments/cosmic-rays-clouds
11. Climate Change: The Role of Flawed Science An analysis by Peter Laut – November 2009
https://www.realclimate.org/wp-content/uploads/PETERLAUT-ANALYSIS-CLIMATE-CHANGE-CPN1.pdf
12. Climate myths: It's all down to cosmic rays; Michael Le Page and Fred Pearce 2007
13. Bart Verheggen, Department of Air Quality and Climate Change , Energy research Institute of the Netherlands (ECN)
14. Dynamical evidence for causality between galactic cosmic rays and interannual variation in global temperature: Anastasios A. Tsonis et al 2015
https://www.pnas.org/content/112/11/3253
15. Global atmospheric particle formation from CERN CLOUD measurements: Dunne et al 2016
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6316/1119
16. NMDB: Real-Time Database for high-resolution Neutron Monitor measurements
Neutron monitor database
17. The Connection between Cosmic Rays, Clouds and Climate,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wU1qg8HceGI&t=5s
18. Climate Change: Global Temperature Rebecca Lindsey and LuAnn Dahlman 2020
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature