CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research in Geneva, Switzerland, has confirmed that cosmic rays have a strong influence on cloud formation and hence on climate.  This is another blow to climate models. The research was part of CERN’s  CLOUD experiment.

The hypothesis that cosmic rays have a strong effect on cloud formation, and hence climate, was proposed in the 1990s by Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen and updated in the paper: Svensmark, H. 2007. Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges. Astronomy & Geophysics 48: 1.18-1.24. Svensmark’s book, The Chilling Stars, is a popularized version of his research. 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. More global cloud cover means cooler temperatures. Cloud cover increases when the intensity of cosmic rays grows and decreases when the intensity declines. The strength of Sun’s magnetosphere modulates how much cosmic radiation reaches the atmosphere.

In 2007, an experiment by the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen, using a particle accelerator, found that cosmic rays, colliding with molecules in the atmosphere produce substantial amounts of ions and release free electrons, which promote the formation of building blocks for cloud condensation nuclei on which water vapor condenses to make clouds. This research supported Svensmark’s hypothesis.

Now, just completed experiments in CERN’s Large Hadron Collider, reproduce the results of the Danish experiment of 2007 and once again provide evidence supporting the contention that cosmic rays influence climate.

Results of the CERN experiment are published in Nature. Nature News admits (reluctantly because the results are politically incorrect), “Cloud formation may be linked to cosmic rays.”

Geologists have long noticed a connection between Ice Ages (not to be confused with glacial epochs) and cosmic ray flux. See the graph below (blue bars are times of ice ages.)

In the graph above, the geologic reconstruction of temperature is based on oxygen-18 isotopes from fossils and cave stalagmites. The red line, CRF (cosmic ray flux), can be deduced from the so-called cosmogenic nuclides, such as beryllium-10, carbon-14 and chlorine-36. These can serve as indirect proxies for solar activity and can be measured in ancient sediments, trees, and shells. The temperature lows on the CRF curve reflect the times when our solar system passed through the spiral arms of the Milky Way galaxy at approximately 145-million-year intervals. At these times CRF was particularly strong which produced clouds, extreme cooling, and the ice ages. The independent geologic isotope reconstruction and other geologic evidence (such as glacial deposits) agree almost exactly with the CRF data.

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. More recently, the Sun’s magnetic flux is on the wane portending cooler periods ahead.

The announcement and the politics involved are discussed on Anthony Watts’ blog here.

Because these results make some climate models obsolete and call into question the contentions of those on the climate funding dole, there will be attempts to minimize the results. It should be interesting.

UPDATES:

CERN press release here.

The paper presented in Nature today was submitted in September 2010, so it does not reflect the latest results of the CERN experiment.

Svenmark’s 1999 paper on cosmic rays here.

See also:

Ice Ages and Glacial Epochs

NASA Says Earth Is Entering A Cooling Period

Astronomers predict a major drop in solar activity, that means a cold spell

Declining Sunspots my trigger deep cooling period

Geophysicist predicts new “Little Ice Age” by 2050

Climate modelers are having a problem. The global temperature is not cooperating with the way the modelers say it should if their theories are correct. We learned of their consternation from the “Climategate” emails: Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research said, “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

Now the modelers claim that China has saved the day by burning coal. A paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (written, by the way, by two geographers and two economists) claim that increased coal burning in China has put enough sulfur dioxide (SO₂) in the air to block the alleged warming effect of carbon dioxide.

The logical, but perhaps absurd, conclusion of this claim is that we should abandon wind turbines and solar arrays, to burn much more coal.

If we stipulate that air quality near Chinese coal-burning power plants is foul, the question remains: is this a local effect or is it world-wide, enough to affect global temperature? Well, apparently the effect is not world-wide. The EPA measures air quality and the graph below shows that in the U.S., sulfur dioxide content of the air has been steadily decreasing. (Source )

This “China syndrome” seems to be another attempt to explain away the failings of climate modeling and the divergence between model predictions and real-world observations. Perhaps the IPCC had it right when they said in their Third Assessment Report: “In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the prediction of a specific future climate state is not possible.”

UPDATE: New NASA paper says volcanoes primarily responsible for increased SO2:

Recently, the trend, based on ground-based lidar measurements, has been tentatively attributed to an increase of SO(2) entering the stratosphere associated with coal burning in Southeast Asia. However, we demonstrate with these satellite measurements that the observed trend is mainly driven by a series of moderate but increasingly intense volcanic eruptions primarily at tropical latitudes.

See also:

A Basic Error in Climate Models

Climate Model Projections vs Real World Observations

How Mother Nature Fools Climate Scientists

Your Carbon Footprint doesn’t Matter

A Modest Proposal: Triple Your Carbon Footprint

Global warming is big business. Even though by some accounts there has been no global warming since 1998 and a dearth of sunspots portends global cooling, maintaining the myth of dangerous global warming brings in dollars to federal agencies, college research grants, rent-seeking alternative energy companies, and others. These unnecessary expenditures contribute to our $14 trillion budget deficit.

An article by meteorologist Art Horn, published by the British think tank Global Warming Policy Foundation lists this largess:

The big winner in the climate change money train is the National Science Foundation — they are requesting $1.616 billion. They want $766 million for the Science, Engineering and Education for Sustainability program, a 15.9% increase from their last budget. They also need another $370 million for the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), an increase of 16%. They say they also need another $480 million for Atmospheric Sciences, an increase of 8.1%, and Earth Sciences, up 8.7%.

Oh, and $955 million for the Geosciences Directorate, an increase of 7.4%.

The second largest request for money in 2011 comes from the Department of Energy. They say they need $627 million for things like funding for renewable energy. The request represents a whopping 37% increase from last year! They want a 12% increase for energy efficiency programs. They want to eliminate $2.7 billion of subsidies for industries that emit large amounts of carbon dioxide.

Let’s get NASA in on the parade! For 2011, NASA wants $438 million to study climate change, an increase of 14%. NASA’s total Earth Sciences budget request is actually $1.8 billion. Some $809 million of that is for satellites, some of which are specifically put in orbit to study climate change. It is difficult to separate out which ones are for climate monitoring and which ones are not, so I won’t include this number in the overall climate change money train. But make no mistake: a significant percentage of the $809 million is exclusively for climate change satellites.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is looking for $437 million for climate research. This is an increase of 21.4% from the previous budget. This includes funds for regional and national assessments of climate change, including ocean acidification. Once again, another meaty bag of money to tap into for researchers, who have nice cars and big houses and need to keep up the payments.

The Department of the Interior (DOI) is also interested in robbing the climate change vault — they say they need $244 million in 2011. Of this total, $171 million is for the Climate Change Adaptation initiative. This program identifies areas and species that are most vulnerable to climate change, and implements coping strategies. Another $73 million is needed for the New Energy Frontier initiative. The goal of this program is to increase solar, wind, and geothermal energy capacity.

Solar and wind power don’t survive without this government funding.

Is that $14 trillion making sense yet?

Of course, there’s more. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) wants $169 million to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, an increase of 1%. Do you believe that next year greenhouse gases will be reduced by the EPA spending $169 million? I would bet the ranch that greenhouse gases will continue to increase next year, and the year after that, and the year after that despite EPA spending your money.

Is there any government agency that does not get some climate change funding? The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) wants $338 million for climate change programs. They want $159 million for climate change research, up a whopping 42%. They also want another $179 million for renewable energy, an increase of 41%! The USDA’s climate change efforts are supposed to help farm and land owners adapt to the impacts of climate change. Yes, really.

Redundancy on top of redundancy, piles of money on top of piles of money. All to study climate change, which, according to the theory, should be warming us rapidly, but, according to the data, has stopped. How much of the requested money these government agencies actually get is not yet known. The way they spend money in Washington, you can rest assured they’ll get most of it.

If you’re looking to cut the budget, climate change is a good place to start. If we don’t get a handle on Washington’s spending soon, and I mean very soon, climate change will be the least of our problems.