Connection between cosmic rays, clouds and radiation budget is reaffirmed…CO2 role thus has to be much smaller.
There have been a flurry of recently published studies on radiative forcing and its variation due to cloud changes.
The latest is a new study published in the journal Nature. Climate scientists Dr. Henrik Svensmark and colleagues have found that cosmic rays, or variations in ionization, are closely related to the formation of aerosols and clouds, and that “low-liquid clouds are mainly responsible for the change in net radiative forcing.”
The results are groundbreaking: The connection between cosmic rays, clouds and radiation budget is reaffirmed.
The paper’s abstract:
Atmospheric ionization produced by cosmic rays has been suspected to influence aerosols and clouds, but its actual importance has been questioned. If changes in atmospheric ionization have a substantial impact on clouds, one would expect to observe significant responses in Earth’s energy budget. Here it is shown that the average of the five strongest week-long decreases in atmospheric ionization coincides with changes in the average net radiative balance of 1.7 W/m2 (median value: 1.2 W/m2) using CERES satellite observations. Simultaneous satellite observations of clouds show that these variations are mainly caused by changes in the short-wave radiation of low liquid clouds along with small changes in the long-wave radiation, and are almost exclusively located over the pristine areas of the oceans. These observed radiation and cloud changes are consistent with a link in which atmospheric ionization modulates aerosol’s formation and growth, which survive to cloud condensation nuclei and ultimately affect cloud formation and thereby temporarily the radiative balance of Earth.”
Chart: Nature, Svensmark et al., 2021
“The magnitude of the impact of solar activity is large, with the Earth absorbing nearly 2 W/m2 of additional energy within 4 to 6 days of the cosmic ray minimum,” the press release for this study states. This is the same net forcing that CO2 exerts in 270 years.”
14 responses to “New Study With Groundbreaking Results: “Connection Between Cosmic Rays, Radiation Budget Reaffirmed””
It is clear from Svensmark and Shaviv, that Galactic Cosmic Rays (now OUR radiation) alter global climate over immensely different timescales.
But here is also something extremely relevant :
Origin of new emergent Coronavirus and Candida fungal diseases—Terrestrial or cosmic?
Could it be a comet breakup and explosion 2000km from Wuhan on Oct 11 2019 actually brought the virus in? Could it be that landlubber military industrial complex Cold War fossils, simply cannot look up?
As the authors say a perfect storm of cosmic dust and a low Solar magnetic field with enhanced GCR’s…
This is a job for the much lauded Space Defense – monitor cometary RNA influx!
Who are the aliens that keep blasting us with their cosmic rays?
With reduced solar activity in prospect we may need help from above.
Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory has been tested for over thirty years, and it’s accepted by the scientific establishment, despite the fact that it has been disproved beyond reasonable doubt.
In contrast, Svensmark and Shaviv’s theory is now empirically tested and proven through real-world observations.
AGW will keep serving corrupt scientists who have built their careers and reputation on it, as well as activists, international organizations, politicians, business people, media companies, and all sorts of climate doom prophets and saints.
The man-made global warming scam will take many years to dissolve, but it will, eventually.
You know you’re over the target when you start getting flack – or weird people posting utter gibberish in the comments, to make this look like a site for weirdos.
I looked yesterday for Nir Shaviv to comment about this at his blog, sciencebits. Nothing yet
Cosmic ray impacting the Earth is modulated by solar variations, and cosmic rays and solar outputs profoundly affects our climate!
WOW! Who knew? 😉
On my first reading, this paper advances Svensmarks cosmoclimatology thesis in two ways First, by showing that GCRs not only generate close nuclei, but can alter the Earth’s radiative energy budget.
Second, getting this far means that the theory may undermine a fundamental rationale for embracing AGW: natural climate change is ruled out because only human released CO2 can explain the correlation of rising temperatures and rising carbon dioxide (See Wikipedia, climate change, and the top right graph,https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change)
The Wiki article referencing AR6 states “The main driver for increased global temperatures in the industrial era is human activity. Natural forces add relatively minor variability.”
This is — or rather both claims here are now open to question until more measurements on the mechanism identified by Svensmarks, et al. are done.
That’s my layman’s short take
Line 4 correction: cloud nuclei, not “close nuclei.”
There are 2 easy ways to know the climate speech fraud promoted by journalists.
1- History of climate events.
2- Satellite launches:
“The main scientific purpose of FORUM is to better understand the Earth’s radiation budget – the balance between the incoming radiation mostly from the Sun at short wavelengths, and outgoing radiation, which is a combination of reflected radiation from the Sun and radiation emitted by the Earth system, much of it a longer wavelengths – and the way this exchange is affected by the changes in the Earth’s atmosphere caused by human activity. FORUM will especially be measuring the long-wavelength outgoing energy, which is strongly influenced by water vapour and thin ice clouds in the Earth’s atmosphere. According to available data, about 50 percent of the total energy emitted by the Earth is in this long-wavelength range, but these emissions were not monitored in detail from space until now.” <— "now" being 2026.
According to ESA, the FORUM mission was selected over SKIM specifically because it promises to "fill in a critical missing piece of the climate jigsaw".
The satellite will be launched in second half of 2026…
One final (and third) point made by Svensmarks, et al, which has legs.
The FDs studied connect to the 22 year solar cycle. And hence to sunspots.
The objection to granting much significance to varying sunspot counts to harvest or the climate has been it’s lack of a physical basis. This paper seems on track to begin doing so. But further details must await more instrumental measurements.
“Connection between cosmic rays, clouds and radiation budget is reaffirmed…CO2 role thus has to be much smaller.”
Smaller than what, actually? –
Has anyone in the AGW community come up with an actual, empirically verified number for the atmosphere’s sensitivity to industrial era CO2 emissions? Has any specific AGW prediction materialize, so far?
Dozens of computer programs called “climate models” produce a broad range of answers, depending solely on the numbers that the people who wrote and/or run them have been feeding them, based on these people’s need for government grants, PR, and their commitment to the alarmist ideology. Nothing proven, so far, therefore nothing real, until further notice.
Serious and honest scientists such as Happer et al ran extensive calculations that yielded a low number for max climate sensitivity to the increase in atmospheric CO2, but they did not back their findings with specific experimental data, and this is what Svensmark and Shaviv were able to produce in support of their alternative theory, which opens a new field of research.
[…] New Study With Groundbreaking Results: “Connection Between Cosmic Rays, Radiation Budget Reaffirme… […]
[…] New Study With Groundbreaking Results: “Connection Between Cosmic Rays, Radiation Budget Reaff… […]