1 / 25

Cosmic Rays and Global Warming

21 st ECRS Kosice, 2008. Cosmic Rays and Global Warming. A.D.Erlykin 1,2 , G. Gyalai 3 , K. Kudela 3 , T. Sloan 4 and A.W. Wolfendale 2. 1. Lebedev, Moscow 2. University, Durham 3. Academy, Kosice 4. University, Lancaster. Low cloud cover anomalies and CR intensity

gianna
Download Presentation

Cosmic Rays and Global Warming

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 21st ECRS Kosice, 2008 Cosmic Rays and Global Warming A.D.Erlykin1,2, G. Gyalai3, K. Kudela3, T. Sloan4 and A.W. Wolfendale2 1. Lebedev, Moscow 2. University, Durham 3. Academy, Kosice 4. University, Lancaster

  2. Low cloud cover anomalies and CR intensity (Huancayo) – Svensmark (2007)

  3. cloud anomalies (%) cosmic rays (%) cloud anomalies (%) cosmic rays (%) Red Cosmic Rays (Huancayo) cloud anomalies (%) cosmic rays (%) Blue Cloud cover year Global monthly cloud anomalies (Svensmark, 2007) (a) a : high clouds (<440 h Pa) b : middle (440 – 680 h Pa) c : low (>680 h Pa) (b) (c)

  4. ( 1m) ( 10m) 1km A Basic Problem for LCC, CR correlation Typical Cumulus sharp transition 0.4km diffuse transition Much of CR-induced cloud will be below ( and above ) the existing cloud – and will not contribute to the measured LCC.

  5. Peak to peak 11 year cycle in NM data vs VRCO compared with ionization calculations of Usoskin and Kovaltsov (2006).

  6. NM Us. et al. Dip depth vs VRCO

  7. CR produce ~ 3 ion pairs cm-3s-1 in the lower atmosphere. Lifetime is ~ 50sec, so ~ 150cm-3. Clouds have ~ 100 droplets cm-3 so a link would appear to be obvious. Supersaturations in atmosphere far too low for ions to be at an advantage. Aerosols (salt particles, dust, industrial emissions…) dominate. Sizes 10-1(10±2). ~ ~ Ions as condensation centres for clouds ? But

  8. Effect of charge and radius on supersaturation. 5 x 10-18g of dissolved salt. Z = 0 Z = 1000

  9. Charges on drops A literature survey gives the following mean charges (e) in the normal atmosphere: Can be much higher in thunderclouds.

  10. April 26, 1986 2 Mt of fall-out. No increase in cloud cover. (ions cloud droplets)  3% ~ ~ ~ Evidence from radioactive ‘events’ Chernobyl

  11. CC anomaly (%) CC anomaly (%)

  12. ~   10-4 Nuclear Bomb Tests Eg. BRAVO - Bikini Atoll, March 1, 1954. ~ 15 Mt radioactive particles, 10 - 100 300 miles from Ground Zero, dose rate ~ 100 Rh-1, after 4 days. Yields 5.107 ions cm-3 s-1 Averaging over space and time and allowing for size distribution yields.

  13.  25% Radon Radon is an important contributor to atmospheric ionization over land. Indian ‘hot spots’, particularly in the SW. Scans of low CC over two regions show no excess and

  14. Cosmic rays or Solar Irradiance ? SSN Evidence from the power spectra

  15. CR and its power spectrum

  16. Low Cloud Cover

  17. Temperature Changes

  18. CR – change over last 40 years too small to affect temperature.

  19. Different responses of clouds to solar input - Voiculescu et al. (2006) Faction of Globe having correlation of CC with UV or CR ionization (+ correln. minus – correln.)

  20. Time dependence of cloud cover : ‘Extended Edited Cloud Report Archive’ (Warren & Hahn via Norris, 2004), in comparison with Climax CR rate.

  21. Cloud Top Pressure Extra solar energy at SSN max. increases cloud heights – and increases HCC. Just as expected for SI – opposite to expectation for Cosmic Ray Ionization.

  22. Conclusions Causal correlation of LCC and CR highly unlikely, because 1. Cloud Geometry – saturation. 2. Radon, Chernobyl & Bomb tests – no signal. 3. Charges on condensation nuclei far too small. 4. No change of dip with CR rigidity. 5. High Cloud Cover in anti-phase with CR. 6. HCC vs time (last 50 years) anti-correlated with CR.

  23. LCC and SI probably related because 1. Power spectra match better than for LCC & CR. 2. Energetics much more reasonable (108 x). 3. Geographical distribution of stronger correlations, fits LCC vs SI. 4. From 1960 to present : Temperature profile fits SSN better than CR.

More Related