Do cosmic rays have any role in our weather?

[HeNe]

Dose the cosmic rays have any roll in our weather

This question hits me yesterday when I was studying the electric charge and its roll in the weather , so dose the cosmic rays have any roll or its roll is just negligible…. when they hit our atmosphere

[HeNe]

no one there

[wolram]

Dose the cosmic rays have any roll in our weather

This question hits me yesterday when I was studying the electric charge and its roll in the weather , so dose the cosmic rays have any roll or its roll is just negligible…. when they hit our atmosphere

I think high energy particles have been linked to the production of lightning, i have no idea is this is right though and i can not find the info again.

[wolram]

Here you go.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=experts-do-cosmic-rays-cause-lightning

[jostpuur]

The "swindle" document claimed that cosmic rays would be very significant. The claim got this response:


Alan Thorpe, professor of meteorology at the University of Reading and Chief Executive of the UK Natural Environment Research Council, commented on the film in New Scientist. He wrote, "First, let's deal with the main thesis: that the presence or absence of cosmic rays in Earth's atmosphere is a better explanation for temperature variation than the concentration of CO2 and other gases. This is not a new assertion and it is patently wrong: there is no credible evidence that cosmic rays play a significant role...Let scepticism reign, but let's not play games with the evidence."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

[Tanja]

http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/cosmicrays/cratmos.html

[Skyhunter]

http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/cosmicrays/cratmos.html

I found this link to use questionable sources (http://www.dsri.dk/~hsv/Noter/solsys99.html).


S Solar constant (at 1 AU) 1360 W/m2
S/4 Top of atmosphere 340 W/m2
S/4 (1 - a ) Earth's albedo a = 0.3 235 W/m2
1% change in Earth's albedo 1 W/m2
Estimated radiative effect of the increase of CO2 since 1750 until present 1.5 W/m2
Doubling of CO2 4 W/m2
Radiative effect of clouds (cooling) 17- 35 W/m2
This is very misleading. The radiative cooling effect of clouds are albedo changes that reflect SW radiation. This cooling is offset by increased LW flux. The 17 - 35 Wm2 is being used out of context in this example. Deliberately it appears to mislead the reader into accepting the authors premise.

Here is a "what if" model run (http://www.ejournal.unam.mx/atm/vol19-3/ATM19302.pdf)by Ramirez and Mendoza and their conclusions. They assume that GCR flux does influence low cloud cover as postulated by Svensmark et al. Their conclusions were that the radiative forcing from this hypothetical is significant only in some NH continental areas. The contribution in these regions were found to be significant but still amounted to less than 1 W/m2, not the 17-35 W/m2 alleged by the author.

It should actually read:

Net radiative effect of GCR cloud modulation (cooling) < 1 W/m2 effecting < 10% of surface.

Other than the questionable link I found the site to be quite informative.

[Skyhunter]

Looks like we are going to find out what if any effect cosmic rays have on weather.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/23sep_solarwind.htm

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/images/solarwind/bubble.jpg

[Skyhunter]

Here is 2008 paper (http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/8/7373/2008/acp-8-7373-2008.pdf) that explores the connection between cosmic rays and clouds.

– In general, variations in cloud properties (cloud amount, cloud droplet effective radius, cloud optical depth, cloud liquid water path) from MODIS over the Southern Hemisphere subtropical oceans do not show statistically significant correlations with variations in GCR flux associated with Forbush decrease events. This is also the case for 1–5 day lagged correlations.

– Cloud droplet size has a rather large negative correlation with GCR, in agreement with a possible GCR-CCNcloud coupling. In one of the domains studied (off the coast of SW Africa), that correlation was statistically significant.



Here is an article covering the EGU meeting (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7352667.stm)where this and other compatible research was introduced.