Posts Tagged ‘cosmic rays’

Comment on EER interview with Fritz Vahrenholt

June 11, 2012

Also published in European Energy Review (EER).

Greenhouse gases are responsible for warming, not the sun

Scientists working on climate on a daily basis must have been rather astonished by the interview with Professor Fritz Vahrenholt (European Energy Review, May 2, free registration required). Vahrenholt, chief of RWE Innogy, self-proclaimed climate expert and author of the book Die Kalte Sonne (The Cold Sun), claims that “the contribution of CO2 to global warming is being exaggerated”. These claims, however, do not stand up to scientific scrutiny. We assess his ideas in the light of the scientific literature on the role of the sun versus other climate forcing factors. The dominant influence of greenhouse gases follows not only from their basic physical properties, but also from their “fingerprint” in the observed warming. The sun, in contrast, has not exhibited any warming trend over the past 50 years. The sun is thus not responsible for the warming seen during this period. Greenhouse gases in all likelihood are.

(more…)

Recent changes in the sun, CO2 and global average temperature

April 11, 2010

Several times in recent weeks people have commented that the sun is responsible for the current climate change rather than CO2. Ironically, this was sometimes argued by the same people who were cheering on the claim that there is no deterministic forcing at work in driving temperatures upwards (be it GHG or the sun or whatever else). So much for coherence.

Let’s look at how the global average temperature, CO2 and the sun changed over recent decades:

Temperatures jiggle up and down, but are increasing over the longer term (multiple decades). CO2 has a seasonal cycle due to the ‘breathing’ of the biosphere, but is steadily increasing over the years due to human emissions. The sun shows an 11-year cycle, but no secular increase or decrease over this time period.

Let’s go a bit farther back in time (HadCRU temperatures up to 2008; number of sunspots as a proxy of solar activity; original here):

And looking back at sunspot observations over the past 400 years (original):

So what does this tell us? Of course changes in the sun affect our climate (coherence check: This implies a certain degree of determinism). Low solar activity (e.g. during the Maunder and the Dalton minima) played a role in the so called ‘little ice age’. In the beginning of the 20th century solar activity increased, which contributed to the warming (together with greenhouse gases and a lack of volcanic activity). However, since the solar output (including cosmic rays) remained steady (or even decreased a bit) since the 1950′s, it doesn’t seem very likely that the sun contributed to the recent increase in temperatures since the 1970′s. The little ice age ended (~1850) long before the recent warming started (~1975), so no causal relation there either.

The main reasons that disqualify the sun as being a major culprit in recent global warming are:

• No increase in solar output (or decrease in cosmic rays) over the past 50 years

• Nighttime temperatures increased more than daytime (inconsistent with solar forcing; consistent with GHG forcing)

• Stratospheric cooling (inconsistent with solar forcing; consistent with GHG forcing)

See also Skeptical Science and Lockwood’s recent review paper (the first chapter, describing the context of the ‘controversy’ is well worth reading).

Guest post at Realclimate on aerosol nucleation and climate

April 24, 2009

Guess it’s a little late notice, but I have a guest post at RealClimate on the potential effects of aerosol nucleation and cosmic rays on climate. For the whole article please see RealClimate. The bottom line is as follows.

 

Freshly nucleated particles have to grow by about a factor of 100,000 in mass before they can effectively scatter solar radiation or be activated into a cloud droplet (and thus affect climate). They have about 1-2 weeks to do this (the average residence time in the atmosphere), but a large fraction will be scavenged by bigger particles beforehand. What fraction of nucleated particles survives to then interact with the radiative budget depends on many factors, notably the amount of condensable vapor (leading to growth of the new particles) and the amount of pre-existing particles (acting as a sink for the vapor as well as for the small particles). Model-based estimates of the effect of boundary layer nucleation on the concentration of cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) range between 3 and 20%. However, our knowledge of nucleation rates is still severely limited, which hampers an accurate assessment of its potential climate effects. Likewise, 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.

AGU highlights: Effects of particle nucleation and cosmic rays on clouds

December 22, 2008

 

This past week the annual AGU (American Geophysical Union) fall meeting was held in San Francisco. There were a number of interesting climate related talks that I attended. Here’s a short briefing of some of these, related to the climate effects of aerosol, and possibly of cosmic rays. This post is more technical than other ones on this blog. Meeting abstracts can be searched here.

 

Background

Aerosol nucleation refers to the formation of a stable aerosol particle (miniscule liquid droplet of a few nanometers in diameter) in the atmosphere. These particles can grow larger in size to then affect cloud formation, and thus climate. A controversial hypothesis sais that the decreasing flux of cosmic rays from outer space has decreased the amount of particles produced by nucleation, and thus decreased the cloud cover and thereby warmed the climate. The flux of cosmic rays has remained constant over the last 50 years (apart from the 11 year cycle mirroring solar min/max conditions), so they can’t have influenced the warming during this time period. The micro-physics of the processes involved are poorly understood, but important/interesting for a number of other reasons as well, eg the climate effects of aerosols in general.

 

AGU highlights

The Finnish group (headed by Kulmala) gave an overview of long term measurements of particle nucleation at their Boreal forest site, reporting that there was no relation whatsoever with cosmic rays. Sulfuric acid (a prime agent in the nucleation process) had a slightly decreasing trend over the past decade, whereas both particle nucleation and growth rates slightly increased, suggesting that the role of organics in both these processes may have increased. According to their analyses, the role of ion induced nucleation (relevant to the hypothetical cosmic rays – cloud link) can explain 10 to 20% on average of the rate of production of 2 nm sized particles.

 

Bondo, from the Danish group headed by Svensmark, reported on laboratory (chamber) studies of ion induced nucleation under exposure of ionizing radiation from a radioactive source. The presentation focused mainly on comparing theoretical calculations with the measurements. To the speaker’s credit, no far reaching climate conclusions were drawn.

 

Yu and Turco analyzed data from the Finnish group, and whereas the Fins calculate a less than 10% contribution of ion induced nucleation (to the total amount of particles produced), Yu and Turco arrived at the opposite conclusion. If anything, this indicates that the nucleation processes are very poorly understood, partly because of the strong non-linearity (and thus strong dependencies on uncertain parameters) involved. Yu cautioned on the use of the nucleation theorem (which sais that the log-log slope of the nucleation rate to the sulfuric acid concentration is equal to the number of sulfuric acid molecules in the critical cluster), because other factors (if they’re not constant) may influence the slope found.

 

There were two talks on global modeling of aerosol nucleation. Spracklen showed that only including primary emissions of aerosol underestimates the number of aerosol particles typically measured, so nucleation contributes significantly to the aerosol number budget. Moreover, only including binary homogeneous nucleation (according to the classical nucleation theory) still leads to an underestimation of particle numbers; some sort of empirical nucleation scheme is needed to reach reasonable agreement. That is something I recognize from most other (including my own) research of both field and laboratory measurements.

 

Pierce, using a different model (based on the GISS II GCM), investigated the potential effect of cosmic rays on cloud condensation nuclei and cloudiness. Two different parameterizations for ion induced nucleation (Modgil et al and an ‘ion-limit’ assumption that all ions go on to form a new particle), somewhat surprisingly, both lead to a change in nucleation of about 20%, in response to a prescribed change in cosmic ray flux. This difference in cosmic ray flux was of the order of the difference between solar minimum and solar maximum, which happens to be comparable to the change in cosmic ray flux over the first half of the 20th century. If this 20% change in nucleation would translate directly in a 20% change in the number of cloud droplets, one might expect a change in cloud cover of about 2% (which is similar to the magnitude suggested by Svensmark et al as having been caused by cosmic rays). However, as one might expect, the number of cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) in the model changed by much less than 20% in response to the 20% change in nucleation. Let alone the number of cloud droplets and the cloud cover.

 

Penner gave a very interesting talk in which she showed that satellite derived estimates of the aerosol indirect effect (i.e. their effect on clouds and thus on climate) are substantially smaller than model calculated estimates (the former are in the range of -0.2 W/m2, whereas the latter range between roughly -0.5 and -1.5 W/m2. The negative sign means it causes cooling.) However, satellite estimates are based on the aerosol optical depth, and this may cause an underestimation of the aerosol indirect effect (AIE). The model calculated AIE is very sensitive to nucleation and to primary aerosol emissions.

 

Concerning the second indirect effect, based on satellite measurements a 5% difference in the probability of precipitation was found between clean and polluted clouds (where the latter has a lower probability than the former, because of the enhanced droplet number and thus reduced droplet size). Rosenfeld claims that this so called cloud lifetime effect is stronger than the cloud albedo effect, whereas others claim the opposite.

 

At the last EGU meeting in Vienna Philipona presented empirical evidence from several mid-European sites that the direct effect of aerosol (scattering of sunlight) may be stronger than their indirect effect via clouds, whereas modeling results usually point to the opposite. They suggested that a decrease in aerosol loading may have contributed significantly to the warming of the past 30 years, and that when the aerosol loading stabilizes again, the rate of warming will decrease as a consequence. This fits in with the global dimming – global brightening picture (the amount of solar radiation received at the surface depends on the aerosol loading because of their light scattering properties).

 

The large uncertainties in the aerosol effects on climate may affect estimates of the climate sensitivity (equilibrium temperature change for a given change in climate forcing) (Penner) and/or of the ocean response time (lag in temperature response caused by thermal inertia of the oceans) (Hansen). The three are connected, and their magnitudes can be traded off in trying to match the 20th century temperature record by models. For example, a larger negative aerosol forcing (and thus a weaker net positive forcing) would need to be combined with a higher climate sensitivity and/or a shorter ocean response time in order to still provide a good match. Of course, there are other constrains on these processes as well that have to be taken into account.

 


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 124 other followers