This offers renewed hope for Svensmark’s theory of cosmic ray modulation of earth’s cloud cover. Here is an interesting correlation published just yesterday in GRL.
Cosmic rays detected deep underground reveal secrets of the upper atmosphere
Watch the video animation here (MPEG video will play in your media player)
Published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters and led by scientists from the UK’s National Centre for Atmospheric Science (NCAS) and the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC), this remarkable study shows how the number of high-energy cosmic-rays reaching a detector deep underground, closely matches temperature measurements in the upper atmosphere (known as the stratosphere). For the first time, scientists have shown how this relationship can be used to identify weather events that occur very suddenly in the stratosphere during the Northern Hemisphere winter. These events can have a significant effect on the severity of winters we experience, and also on the amount of ozone over the poles – being able to identify them and understand their frequency is crucial for informing our current climate and weather-forecasting models to improve predictions.
Working in collaboration with a major U.S.-led particle physics experiment called MINOS (managed by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory), the scientists analysed a four-year record of cosmic-ray data detected in a disused iron-mine in the U.S. state of Minnesota. What they observed was a strikingly close relationship between the cosmic-rays and stratospheric temperature – this they could understand: the cosmic-rays, known as muons are produced following the decay of other cosmic rays, known as mesons. Increasing the temperature of the atmosphere expands the atmosphere so that fewer mesons are destroyed on impact with air, leaving more to decay naturally to muons. Consequently, if temperature increases so does the number of muons detected.
What did surprise the scientists, however, were the intermittent and sudden increases observed in the levels of muons during the winter months. These jumps in the data occurred over just a few days. On investigation, they found these changes coincided with very sudden increases in the temperature of the stratosphere (by up to 40 oC in places!). Looking more closely at supporting meteorological data, they realised they were observing a major weather event, known as a Sudden Stratospheric Warming. On average, these occur every other year and are notoriously unpredictable. This study has shown, for the first time, that cosmic-ray data can be used effectively to identify these events.
Lead scientist for the National Centre for Atmospheric Science, Dr Scott Osprey said: “Up until now we have relied on weather balloons and satellite data to provide information about these major weather events. Now we can potentially use records of cosmic-ray data dating back 50 years to give us a pretty accurate idea of what was happening to the temperature in the stratosphere over this time. Looking forward, data being collected by other large underground detectors around the world, can also be used to study this phenomenon.”
Dr Giles Barr, co-author of the study from the University of Oxford added: “It’s fun sitting half a mile underground doing particle physics. It’s even better to know that from down there, we can also monitor a part of the atmosphere that is otherwise quite tricky to measure”.
Interestingly, the muon cosmic-ray dataset used in this study was collected as a by-product of the MINOS experiment, which is designed to investigate properties of neutrinos, but which also measures muons originating high up in the atmosphere, as background noise in the detector. Having access to these data has led to the production of a valuable dataset of benefit to climate researchers.
Professor Jenny Thomas, deputy spokesperson for MINOS from University College London said “The question we set out to answer at MINOS is to do with the basic properties of fundamental particles called neutrinos which is a crucial ingredient in our current model of the Universe, but as is often the way, by keeping an open mind about the data collected, the science team has been able to find another, unanticipated benefit that aids our understanding of weather and climate phenomena.”
Dr Osprey commented: “This study is a great example of what can be done through international partnerships and cross-disciplinary research. One can only guess what other secrets are waiting to be revealed.”
h/t to Ron de Haan
jonathan @ur momisugly 0910:10
I think Lubos’ point is that if the volumetric expansion of the stratosphere is predominantly in the “z” or vertical direction, the effective areal density of the stratosphere is the same, hence the same number of collisions would occur, but the average height of collision would be higher, hence one would expect to see fewer muons.
Oops… That ought to have been 52Myrs, 33Myrs, and 32,999,997/33,000,000ths of the way there…
Sometimes it hard to keep firmly in mind just what “galactic scale’ means…
Tex (14:45:48) :
Any chance that the events causing the SSW are related to the large transfers of energy from the solar magnetic field to the earth that was documented last year?
No. And there are no huge transfers.
Has there been any good work done on the causes of SSWs?
In the Earth’s atmosphere there are planetary Rossby waves [wavelength of thousands of km]. These waves propagate up from the troposphere to the stratosphere during the winter. These waves can break [as waves often do], causing the temperature to increase by 50K or more in a matter of days.
H.R. (14:29:23) :
The article said they only had data going back 50 years. Is there another source of data that would extend the record back another 20 years? (That sort of info is in your bailiwick.) If so, I agree that it would be cool.
The article mentions the possibility of using early cosmic ray data from the 1930s.
realitycheck (10:54:34) :
apologies if I am keeping this debate off topic, but wanted to clarify…
tallbloke:
SSW activity is definitely dependant on up-ward propagating Rossby waves and does indeed appear to be enhanced when the QBO is easterly (or negative), but here is the problem – SSWs can occur when the QBO is positive and, similarly, QBO negative and a rising Rossby wave does not guarantee that an SSW occurs.
As several of you allude, the atmosphere shows chaotic behaviour on many levels and therefore works in a non-linear way (very small perturbations now can lead to massive changes in the future) so SSW activity MAY depend solely on subtle non-linear interactions between QBO phase and Rossby waves, but we are far from understanding the exact mechanism and the idea of a “triggering” mechanism – such as a pulse of in-bound cosmic rays is probably worth exploring further
I will leave that to the relevant experts.
Thanks for the reply. I didn’t want to derail the debate either, but I was struggling to see where sufficient power could be found from GCR’s to reverse the circulation of stratospheric currents. That it’s a predominantly northern hemisphere event (apart from one recorded SSW over antarctica in 2002) implies that the energy which drives it is terrestrial. The more I discover about correlations between length of day, global atmospheric angular momentum and things like rossby waves and the QBO, the more I’m appreciating the complexity and interelatededness of the climates various elements.
I think I need a good up to date coherent primer if anyone has some recommendations for further reading.
Thanks Anna, sounds like you had a very interesting 35 years. Particle Physics was pretty Rube Goldberg, when I was learning about it at Uof Auckland. The 8 fold way was the cats meow.
Seems a lot more orderly now; which I guess means we do eventually make progress.
George
Nice to know what people around here do or have done.
[no more off topic politics please – Anthony]
“” Jonathan (11:38:04) :
George: in modern terminology the muon is not a meson. Mesons are quark-antiquark pairs, such as the pion. The muon is a lepton, like the electron and the tauon. “”
Jonathan, thanks for the heads up. You have to bear in mind, that my first electronics text book was the 1938 “Admiralty Handbook of wireless Telegraphy.” All about spark transmitters and “coherers”. As I recall that book depicted the copper atom as having 63 protons in the nucleus, which was like a plum pudding with 34 electron raisins stuck in the pudding surface, and another 29 electrons orbiting around like planets. Seems that book came out just before the discovery of the neutron. Of course I didn’t get the book till around 1953 when I got out of highschool; and it was regarded as a quaint classic then. My recollection was that the half life of a free neutron then was 12 minutes, but I see it is now more like 14; clearly a time dilation effect !
But the general state of particle physics was pretty bleak, and mus and pis were simply mesons, and all the quarks wer not even twinkles in someones eye.
So if the electron is stable why aren’t the the muon and Tauon stable.
Presumably the pion is an up/down pair, then there would be a strange/charm pair and a top/bottom pair.
So who the blazes are Truth and Beauty ?
Well it sounds like they had fun putting all that stuff together. I think it is something like general relativity; totally intractible when it first came up, but as others streamlined the mathematics; it starts to get almost ho-hum.
Nice to know that Anna made a life long career out of those little buggers.
I had to slide over into electronics, and Optics, but I found that my Physics base was far more useful, than going the EE route.
We have an eclectic population here in this clubhouse.
George
I thought… what the heck, it’s friday night.
Enjoy everyone…
[snip, I get on people on this site for labeling people as deniers, so it is only fair that I delete your choice of label. Sorry, Anthony]
realitycheck and Joe D’Aleo linked earlier in the thread to the fact that one of these Stratosphere Sudden Warming Events is now occuring. The last one in the northern hemipshere was 2001.
It looks to be a truly huge event now in the latest chart. A 50C event is ocurring which is as big as these get. One of the Spitsbergen radiosondes has recorded an 80C temp increase over 5 days.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/10mb9065.gif
I don’t know much about these events but any kind of change like this has got to have far reaching effects. The northern polar vortex has literally stopped as part of this event – the weather could start coming from the east in high and mid-latititudes. The forecasts for the NAO have been drastically reduced in the last few days.
There is no way that sudden warming in the high stratosphere like this does not result in a lot of heat/energy escaping to space.
Anyone know more about this?
And the cosmic ray charts seem to have recontinued their march up with the decline in the solar cycle.
http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=76151
This is simplified and lay terms. It is another topic about Antarctica and its “warming.”
Ozone Hole a Good Thing
The bottom line is Mother Nature is attempting to prevent the warming through the ozone hole and what are humans going to do? Well of course fix the hole by 2050 which will homogeneously speed up the warming of Antarctica. What the heck is wrong with us? . . . Well not me I would not do it.
b
Leif Svalgaard (16:36:08) :
Leif,
I’m trying to get a handle on the Rossby waves, and am a bit confused by your statement “These waves propagate up from the troposphere to the stratosphere during the winter.”
Do you mean to use the word migrate rather than propogate? My understanding is that Rossby Wave propagation is east-west, and I’m having a hard time picturing the waves taking a right-angle turn to the vertical.
Earle
You guys might as well be speaking Klingon.
Ha! See what I did there?
/slinks away into the darkness…
Foinavon
I’m not here to defend all Svensmarks work. He can do that himself. I merely noted that one of his predictions – a correlation between temps and cosmic rays, which was poo-poo’d by the establishment, has been independently verified.
Detrending is intended to give a zero trend not a cooling trend. That cooling trend that you see just isn’t there. Also the cosmic rays clearly seem (especially visible in figure 1) to be on a rising trend to me. Since your arguments rest on that fallacy there’s really nothing to discuss. I grant that the water vapor positive feedback explanation for the trend difference is a bit ropey and ALL adjustments to temperatures are to be treated with suspicion.
However, unlike you I am able to see that such handwaves appear with greater frequency in the pro-AGW camp than among skeptics. I am also able to note, and which you ritually ignore, that whatever the potential deficiencies in Svensmarks theories, it is being asked to pass tests that the CO2 theory is clearly exempt from. For example, if I point out the lack of correlation of CO2 to temperatures to anyone I get the parrot-type response that the inclusion of the “well-established” aerosol argument explains the difference. Yet if Svensmark or others come up with lesser magic bullets to force a correlation or explain away a simple lack of trend then you come down on him like a ton of bricks. Consistency please: why not look equally skeptically at the ritual handwaving explanations from the AGW camp: There are certainly lots to choose from.
foinavon (13:27:26) :
‘Really? The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report assesses the climate sensitivity to be in the range 2 – 4.5 oC. The data that informs the conclusion of a climate sensitivity in that range is pretty much entirely empirical.’
Which climate sensitivity “empirical” data is the IPPC talking about?
Data from an experience, experiment, or observed? I don’t consider a computer model build around a CO2 drives the climate theory then has the observed data shoehorned in an experiment, observed or experience.
It reminds of the “we are too big to fail” computer models that “Wall Street” used to loose trillion of dollars.
What a fascinating and mind opening article. (And what an absolutely absorbing theory I might add!) I can always expect a good read at this site. So many open and thoughtful minds!
Refreshing!
Cheers all!
Leif Svalgaard –
“The article mentions the possibility of using early cosmic ray data from the 1930s.”
I thought you’d have to dig into your super-secret sources to tell me the answer and it was in the article :o)
Can’t believe I missed that, and I looked again briefly before I asked. Thanks!
Would this correlation fit in with Charles Wilson’s work on ionizing radiation and cloud formation back in the 1920’s?
Just asking.
foinavon
“it’s devillishly difficult to “disprove” something for which there is pretty rock-solid theoretical and empirical evidence. Does the greenhouse effect exist or doesn’t it? Is CO2 a greenhouse gas or not?”
Red herring.
It’s the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect aspect of the theory that is suspect, not whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
—–
Also, you quoted JamesG who said the postulated 3 degrees isn’t in the evidence, then replied
“Really? The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report assesses the climate sensitivity to be in the range 2 – 4.5 oC. The data that informs the conclusion of a climate sensitivity in that range is pretty much entirely empirical.”
Unresponsive.
Climate model output is not evidence, neither is it proof of anything. It must match the real-world data, which it doesn’t. The ‘pretty much’ in your statement is a gaping black hole.
——
re Svensmark:
“We can conclude:
4. Variations in the CRF have made (according to S-FC) no contribution to the warming of interest.”
But but but, that’s not Svensmark’s claim nor his theory.
you do realize it’s a negative correlation between temperature and cosmic ray flux, don’t you. The flux is modulated by solar wind and magnetic field which are weaker during the down part of the solar cycle. Higher flux leads to more clouds which leads to cooler temps and even more cooler on the downside of the solar cycle. IOW, this is a negative feedback, not a cause of warming.
I think you simply don’t grok Svensmark yet.
If I could add however, that I have been keeping daily track of the weather in my neck of the woods (literally) for quite a few years now, and have been amazed at the strength and tenacity of the large mass of high pressure over the arctic. Our early cold weather, and the current deep freeze just beginning here, are clearly the result of that persistent mass.
A clue as to my whereabouts and hobbies: I am a business owner and very amateur pilot/meteorologist, living in paradise at the foot of the very North West slopes of the Cascades. 20 Km’s. or so East x Southeast of Chilliwack BC. I have always followed the weather closely, and can only recall back to the ’69/’70 winter for such lingering cold air flowing out through the valleys for so long a period. The entire North and central area of Canada has been breathtakingly cold for a long time this year, and none of the even vigorous pineapple expresses we are famous for has made much of a dent. The cold air mass receded for a few weeks to mostly right around where I live, and consequently we have had much colder weather than what gets reported out of YVR. (Vancouver International) It must be noted that I am a mere 60 clicks east of the Lower Mainland, and generally over the past 20 years or so we get pretty much the same weather as the greater Vancouver area, minus a few degrees. Often, we are much warmer and wetter.
I will go out on a very precarious limb here and predict that things are going to be very cold in the Pacific NW for many more days this winter. If the postulations mentioned here turn out correct, we should be in this for even longer. Most unfortunate as Cold = Death.
Keep in mind those that have to bear this burden outside.
Earle Williams (17:45:27) :
Do you mean to use the word migrate rather than propogate? My understanding is that Rossby Wave propagation is east-west, and I’m having a hard time picturing the waves taking a right-angle turn to the vertical.
Seems to be established nomenclature:
http://www.atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca/SPARC/SPARC2008GA/Posters/SessionA_P78_A113_Nishii.pdf
Dear DavidGMills:
The abstract you link to has the full paper as well. Thank you for both.
Molon Labe,
I think Lubos is experiencing a minor conceptualization issue. If the atmosphere were contained in a vertical column, he would be correct. As it is not, the SPHERE of the atmosphere expanding REDUCES the density of the atmosphere. As the whole atmosphere does not heat, the higher pressure of the area heated would STILL decrease its density making in the local area.
This is obvious in high and low pressure areas in meterology and the basic physics of gasses. Hot air balloons are a good example of this phenomenon. melting water is one of the few times when heating causes an INCREASE in density.
Oceanic Rossby waves also overturn the thermocline… pulling cold nutrient rich water from below it and replacing it with warm….. They travel from east to west and are very slow moving.
Read this introduction to oceanic Rossby waves from the Southhampton Oceanography Center…. Rossby waves or Planetary waves occur in all fluids subjected to the rotational forces of a planetary body…. including the atmosphere.
It would seem Rossby waves transfer heat at boundary layers quite efficiently… The thermocline in the ocean, and the stratosphere in the atmosphere….
Just musing…. It’s a complicated thing, this climate… 🙂
Forgot the link….. http://www.noc.soton.ac.uk/JRD/SAT/Rossby/Rossbyintro.html
Syl (18:44:45) wrote (regarding climate sensitivity):
“Climate model output is not evidence, neither is it proof of anything. It must match the real-world data, which it doesn’t. The ‘pretty much’ in your statement is a gaping black hole.”
Paleoclimate studies (which don’t use GCMs) also yield climate sensitivities of 2-4.5 degrees.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v360/n6404/abs/360573a0.html
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2999010
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003AGUFMPP22B..07L