Scientists Discover Exploding Stars Link to Climate Change
Cosmic rays from supernovae can influence Earth’s cloud cover and thereby climate according to new research from a team from Denmark.
The study reveals how atmospheric ions, produced by the energetic cosmic rays raining down through the atmosphere, helps the growth and formation of cloud condensation nuclei – the seeds necessary for forming clouds in the atmosphere. When the ionization in the atmosphere changes, the number of cloud condensation nuclei changes, affecting the properties of clouds.
It is thought the role of cosmic rays could be significant for our understanding of why climate has varied in the past and how future climate changes could evolve. “Finally we have the last piece of the puzzle explaining how particles from space affect climate on Earth. It gives an understanding of how changes caused by Solar activity or by super nova activity can change climate,” said Henrik Svensmark, from DTU Space at the Technical University of Denmark, and lead author of the new study.
Cloud condensation nuclei can be formed by the growth of small molecular clusters called aerosols. It has until now been assumed that additional small aerosols would not grow and become cloud condensation nuclei, since no mechanism was known to achieve this.
The new results reveal, both theoretically and experimentally, how interactions between ions and aerosols can accelerate the growth by adding material to the small aerosols and thereby help them survive to become cloud condensation nuclei. It gives a physical foundation to the large body of empirical evidence showing that Solar activity plays a role in variations in Earth’s climate. For example, the Medieval Warm Period around year 1000 AD and the cold period in the Little Ice Age 1300-1900 AD fits with changes in Solar activity.
Even at low ionization levels about 5{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of the growth rate of aerosols is due to ions. In the case of a nearby supernova the effect can be more than 50{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of the growth rate, which will have an impact on the clouds and the Earth’s temperature.
The work is published in Nature Communications.
Read more at www.labnews.co.uk
Trackback from your site.
jerry krause
| #
Hi Reader,
When you read: “Cloud condensation nuclei can be formed by the growth of small molecular clusters called aerosols. It has until now been assumed that additional small aerosols would not grow and become cloud condensation nuclei, since no mechanism was known to achieve this.”, do you ever ask: Specifically what is this small aerosol?
For without this specific information, a reader cannot evaluate the statement: “additional small aerosols would not grow and become cloud condensation nuclei, since no mechanism was known to achieve this.”
There is so much critical information missing, that the word of this statement could be randomly rearranged and no information would be lost since there no meaningful information given by the original statement.
Years ago I accidentally learned something, in a telephone conversation, I did not know, which I assumed I did know because in Weather and Climate by R. C. Sutcliffe, who had become, at the end of WW II, the Chief Meteorological for the British Forces in Europe, I had read: “that in the atmosphere condensation to clouds invariably happens as soon as normal saturation is reached.” To carefully and simply explain why Sutcliffe’s statement was being challenged in this phone requires time to compose a comment. So I will follow this ‘warning’ with this composition if I achieve my goal.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Squidly
| #
Sorry, barely understood a word you wrote.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Reader,
Sutcliffe actually asked the question: “Why is it that in the atmosphere condensation to clouds invariably happens as soon as normal saturation is reached? The answer is that the natural atmosphere, however clean it may appear to be, is always supplied with a sufficient number of minute particles of salts, acid, or other substances which serve just as well as liquid water in capturing water molecules from the vapour.”
However, the atmospheric scientist will whom I was having the telephone conversation stated that Sutcliffe was wrong because the natural atmosphere had been observed to be supersaturated with water vapor. I was speechless and quickly said: “Goodbye.” And went to the internet to possibly learn more about what I had just been told.
I already knew that the vapor pressure of a curved surface, like that a tiny water droplet, was greater than that of a flat surface at the same temperature. I also knew that nonvolatile substances, like salts, acids such as sulfuric and nitric, and sugar, which dissolve in water could lower the vapor pressure of water (having either a flat, or curved, surface). So the higher vapor of a curved surface could be offset by the solution of nonvolatile solutes. So what I read about the problem of growing a very tiny droplet, which had a very signification elevated vapor pressure, was that ‘modelers’ could not model a very tiny droplet which grow to ordinary droplet size without requiring an atmosphere to become supersaturated with water vapor. As I read it became evident that this modeling problem was the claimed observation that the atmosphere had been observed to be supersaturated with water vapor. It was not something that had been actually observed in the natural atmosphere.
Since I learned this years ago, I have been pondering and imagining what did the modelers not consider as a ‘mechanism’? Just as I have been pondering for years why do physicists who have thoughts (comments) about topics of atmospheric science seldom, if ever, refer to any quantum mechanical explanations (mechanisms)? Even quantum mechanical physicists have frequently stated that they cannot rationally explain the theories of quantum mechanics. I conclude they state this because the mechanisms of quantum mechanics appear to be magic. But chemists have long known that atoms constantly do magic as they react and reshuffle to make new molecules.
The colligative properties of dissolved nonvolatile solutes have been observed in large bodies of water (as a specific solvent) which have large (relative to very, very tiny droplets with very curved surfaces) flat surfaces. So, it seems we chemists pretty much ignore that these large bodies do have a surface and thereby ignore which might be occurring at the surface which is in contact with the atmosphere from where it is usually assumed water molecules evaporate (a specific mechanism).
I, when teaching, drew my students’ attentions to the fact a body of water has two different water molecules. Now, as I write, I see there are more than two. But to keep this simple as possible I will stick to two different water molecules—those at the surface which is in contact with the air and those in the interior. Clearly an interior molecule has more opportunity to interact with more water molecules than a surface molecule does. Which is the reason we chemists consider that tiny water droplets form a near perfect spherical shape. For this shape minimizes the number of molecules on the surface relative to the number in the interior. Some might consider it magic that the tiny, tiny mindless molecules in a constant random motion should purposefully so arrange themselves. But I doubt there are many who would challenge the observation that tiny, tiny water droplets have an spherical shape even if the droplet is too small for our eyes to see.
From this observation of a water droplet’s spherical shape and the observed tendency of very curved surfaces to have a greater vapor pressure than a less curved, or even flat, surface, I conclude anything in the solution which might ‘stabilize’ these surface water molecule will be found in greater concentrations at the surface than in the interior. But when I conclude that solute (molecules, ions, whatever), which stabilize the surface water molecules, voluntarily migrate from the interior to the surface to stabilize the surface water molecules, this might be considered magic. But this is a mechanism I consider that modelers might not have considered.
Sutcliffe continued: “As a matter of fact, there are many observations of clouds in air whose relative humidity is considerably below 100 per cent, evidence of nuclei which are hygroscopic.” There seems to be only one conclusion we can draw from this: In this case there is something in the atmosphere which can stabilize water molecules on curved surfaces better than water molecules on a flat surface of pure water.
It seems there is yet another conclusion we can (must) draw from Sutcliffe’s observation. This conclusion is the atmosphere does not contain enough water vapor to grow the droplet to a size where the humidity of the air would become 100 per cent. For it seems for this to happen requires that the stabilizing influence, whatever it be, be diluted so it could not be as effective.
Given this condition of cloud droplets whose vapor pressure was less than 100 per cent, it would seem to force the conclusion that there could be no smaller condensation nuclei whose vapor pressure was greater than the largest cloud droplets present. Or to make a more general statement: the vapor pressure of any hygroscopic particle of that cloud has to be that observed for all the parcels if the parcel has the same uniform temperature.
Maybe I have missed something obvious and this wouldn’t be the first time that such has happened.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Squidly,
Not my problem.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
EnergynEntropy
| #
“One-way entanglement between isolated energies” is a new thesis in neo thermodynamics that has recently started to circulate from late last year. It suggests that isolated energies collaborate on one set of matter are actually inherit constrains through universal entropy. That is very much evident when an internal combustion engine, for example, starts to fail due to entropy internal to its matter. If more energy was put in manufacturing the engine, i.e. by employing even stronger alloys, the machine would have lasted longer, regardless of its level of efficiency processing fuel. How the two isolated energies happened to be entangled together in that way? – is a potential parallel on what this article discusses.
https://the-fifth-law.com/pages/press-release
Reply