• Home
  • Current News
  • Strong evidence that Svensmark’s solar-cosmic ray theory of climate is correct

Strong evidence that Svensmark’s solar-cosmic ray theory of climate is correct

Written by Magnus Cederlöf

Increasingly respected climate theory that cosmic rays impact global temperatures due to influence on cloud formation is given a real boost thanks to new evidence. svensmark

Swedish climate researcher, Cederlöf has performed a detailed analysis of climate data relating to cloud formation and found that there is strong correlation in favour of the theory of Henrik Svensmark (pictured). Svensmark is a physicist and professor in the Division of Solar System Physics at the Danish National Space Institute (DTU Space) in Copenhagen.

 
Cederlöf reports:

In the comments to my last post, led the signature “Slabadang” me on an interesting track. He claimed that the clouds varied in tune with the solar radiation. If this would be the clouds would have a negative feedback and thus balance the climate. I downloaded the satellite data from CERES to check his data.
 
Below is how the global cloud cover varies with the global solar radiation. The reason that solar radiation varies over the year is that the Earth is in an elliptical orbit around the sun. When we in the northern hemisphere has winter, we are therefore closest to the sun. However, it is the angle to the sun which means we have winter.

The global cloud cover and solar radiation variation over the year. The cloud cover is an average of the years 2000 to 2014.
 

So it is a poor correlation between cloud cover and solar radiation if you look at the Earth as a whole. However piling a completely different picture up if you instead look at the two hemispheres:

The cloud cover and solar radiation variation over the year in the northern hemisphere.

The cloud cover and solar radiation variation over the year in the northern hemisphere.

For the two hemispheres, there is thus a very good correlation between solar radiation and cloud cover. The reason that you can not see any correlation globally is likely that these variations are so much less that they drown out the noise of the large variations in the hemispheres.
 
It is thus clear that cloud cover increases when solar radiation increases. Then the sun’s rays do not reach the earth’s surface and then counteracts the clouds changes. The same must therefore apply to the carbon dioxide effect. When it increases, the clouds that counteract the temperature change. Here we have again an example that there is a negative feedback and not a positive feedback that the whole scare propaganda in climate science based.
 
Note also that the clouds are much larger in the southern hemisphere than it is in the northern hemisphere. The reason for this is that there are more clouds over the oceans, and there’s a lot more sea in the southern hemisphere.
 
Climate sensitivity
It is thus more clouds in the southern hemisphere, and the temperature is also lower. Looking at 1000hPa level (near surface), the average temperature of the southern hemisphere 14.4C and for the northern hemisphere 16.5C. After millions of years of energy storage in the oceans of the southern hemisphere, then the temperature is still much lower. 
 
One can not interpret it otherwise than that the oceans hold temperature. A major reason for this must be that the clouds in the southern hemisphere allows the sun’s rays do not reach the earth’s surface.
 
In the southern hemisphere, the average cloud cover 65.5% and in the northern hemisphere 57.6%, according to CERES-date. If the average solar radiation is 237W / m2 can then southern hemisphere approximately 7.9% of 237W / m2 = 18.7W / m2 less sun than the Northern Hemisphere. Now this is probably a little high counted for even if the cloud cover is 100%, the clouds themselves to radiate towards the Earth’s surface.
 
The difference in temperature between the southern and northern hemisphere is thus 2.1c and the difference in solar is about 18.7W / m2. It allows every Watt / m2, equivalent to about 0.11 degree. A doubling of carbon dioxide levels will provide approximately 3.7W / m2, it therefore corresponds to approximately 0.4 degrees (climate sensitivity).
 
 Now I have probably figured a little low, since the change in insolation probably figured a little high, and there may also be other reasons that the temperature between the hemispheres differ. But it is still very far from the many degrees of climate sensitivity horror forecasts suggest. I have previously calculated the climate sensitivity of about 0.3 degrees by looking at seasonal variations (here).
 

Tags: , , ,

Comments (11)

  • Avatar

    chapprg1

    |

    Regardless of the source or even magnitude of any energy source of forcing which will drive an increase in surface/surface atmosphere temperature is must drive an increase in water vaporization as well as an increase in direct IR to space through the ‘atmospheric IR window’. Water vapor convected by warm air carrys the other `75% of energy radiated to space. There is no other significant radiation source. Regardless of the random chaotic dance of cloud albedo and water vapor/droplet/ice crystal radiation to space,it is the only physics in play and balances the NET solar heating or any other forcing to keep the earth temperature stable. It is thus a NET negative feedback. To posit any increase in this water vapor phenomenon as an incremental positive radiation to space feedback, defies physics and any logical scientific reasoning. The ARGO buoy fleet shows an accumulation of ocean heat at the rate of 0.42 watts/m2, consistent with global warming over the 150 years return from the little ice age and nothing to be concerned with; averaging ~0.1 C /decade.

  • Avatar

    Martin Hertzberg

    |

    Mervin:
    Thanks for the documentary. It is indeed superb and clarifies Svensmark’s theory.

  • Avatar

    Mervyn

    |

    Readers might also be interested in watching this superb documentary titled “The Cloud Mystery”:

    • Avatar

      Martin Hertzberg

      |

      Thanks again. Shown below is the abstract of my 2009 E&E paper.

      “The average equilibrium temperature for all the earth’s entities involved in its radiative balance with the sun and free space, is given by:
      T (e) [K] = 278.9 [ ( 1 – alpha  ) / e ] 1/4
      The controlling factor is the ratio of the absorptivity, a = ( 1 -alpha  ), to the emissivity, e . The quantity alpha is the earth’s albedo. It is shown that relatively modest changes of only a few percent in alpha, brought about by variations in cloudiness, are sufficient to account for the observed 20th Century variations in the measured earth’s temperature, provided that such variations in cloudiness can cause an imbalance in the ratio ( 1 – alpha ) / e . ……………………….. Except for the influence of clouds on the albedo, no assumptions are needed regarding the detailed composition of the atmosphere in order to explain the observed small fluctuations in the 20th Century temperatures or the larger, longer term variations of Glacial Coolings and Interglacial Warmings.”

      Thee analysis in the paper is consisttent with Svensmark’s theory.

  • Avatar

    JWR

    |

    Correction 0.11 should have been written as 1/0.11 =9

    The variation of OLR with surface temperature is dOLR/dTs = 3.4 W/m^2/K and not 9 (=1/0.11).
    The variation dOLR for doubling CO2,
    indeed the IPCC value is – 3.7 W/m^2/K.
    This is a wrong figure used by IPCC calculated by artificially broadening the spectrum line of CO2.
    The variation of dOLR for doubling CO2 is a about a factor 30 lower:
    dOLR = -0.13 W/m^2
    The sensitivity becomes 0.13/3.4 = 0.038 degree K

  • Avatar

    JWR

    |

    The variation of OLR with surface temperature is dOLR/dTs = 3.4 W/m^2/K and not 0.11.
    The variation dOLR for doubling CO2,
    indeed the IPCC value is – 3.7 W/m^2/K.
    This is a wrong figure used by IPCC calculated by artificially broadening the spectrum line of CO2.
    The variation of dOLR for doubling CO2 is a about a factor 30 lower:
    dOLR = -0.13 W/m^2
    The sensitivity becomes 0.13/3.4 = 0.038 degree K

  • Avatar

    bobi

    |

    More cloud cover in NH in August than December? I doubt the solar industry agrees with that. Around here (Canada East) there’s hardly any sun November and December. February is more sunny. Anyway, I’m beginning to suspect that contrails have a huge effect in creating cloud cover, or at least constant haze.

  • Avatar

    Alder

    |

    Unfortunately, at least for the quantification, the paper assumes the (alarmist) IPCC position that there is a greenhouse effect. I would like to see the analysis redone with a figure of zero (for temperature increase per doubling of CO2).

    • Avatar

      Greg House

      |

      Good one, Alder! Two other things in the article indicate junk science as well: “global temperature” and “the clouds themselves to radiate towards the Earth’s surface”. In my humble knowledge, there is no physical evidence for cold radiating towards hot.

      • Avatar

        Squid2112

        |

        Spot On! .. Alder & Greg !!!

  • Avatar

    Martin Hertzberg

    |

    Although the Earth is closer to the Sun in NH winter, it also moves faster in its orbit during the winter half of its orbit. Thus exposure time in the NH is shorter and tends to cancel the effect of exposure to a higher radiant flux.
    The changes in radiation are not the major effect according to Svensmark. The solar wind variations and the magnetic field vaiations it projects outward modulate the cosmic ray influx into the solar system. Cosmic rays provide nucleating agents for cloud formation, and thus their modulation causes a modulation in cloudiness.
    The cosmic ray effect is the same for both hemispheres.

Comments are closed