Here’s a surprise. The growth of trees in Britain appears to correlate to cosmic ray intensity. University of Edinburgh researchers have found that trees are growing faster when high levels of cosmic radiation arrive from space. This may also correlate to the Interplanetary Magnetic Field which tends to modulate Galactic Cosmic Rays. The discover lends credence to Svensmark’s work on GCR to cloud cover correlation by demonstrating yet another tangible effect.
The researchers made the discovery studying how growth rings of spruce trees changed over the past half a century.
Here’s the kicker: the variation in cosmic rays affected the tree growth more than changes in temperature or precipitation.
ABSTRACT (link)
- Here, we investigated the interannual variation in the growth rings formed by Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) trees in northern Britain (55°N, 3°W) over the period 1961–2005 in an attempt to disentangle the influence of atmospheric variables acting at different times of year.
- Annual growth rings, measured along the north radius of freshly cut (frozen) tree discs and climatological data recorded at an adjacent site were used in the study. Correlations were based on Pearson product–moment correlation coefficients between the annual growth anomaly and these climatic and atmospheric factors.
- Rather weak correlations between these variables and growth were found. However, there was a consistent and statistically significant relationship between growth of the trees and the flux density of galactic cosmic radiation. Moreover, there was an underlying periodicity in growth, with four minima since 1961, resembling the period cycle of galactic cosmic radiation.
- We discuss the hypotheses that might explain this correlation: the tendency of galactic cosmic radiation to produce cloud condensation nuclei, which in turn increases the diffuse component of solar radiation, and thus increases the photosynthesis of the forest canopy.
The BBC also covers this in an article, here is an excerpt:
By Matt Walker
Editor, Earth News
The growth of British trees appears to follow a cosmic pattern, with trees growing faster when high levels of cosmic radiation arrive from space.
Researchers made the discovery studying how growth rings of spruce trees have varied over the past half a century.
As yet, they cannot explain the pattern, but variation in cosmic rays impacted tree growth more than changes in temperature or precipitation.
The study is published in the scientific journal New Phytologist.
“We were originally interested in a different topic, the climatological factors influencing forest growth,” says Ms Sigrid Dengel a postgraduate researcher at the Institute of Atmospheric and Environmental Science at the University of Edinburgh.
“The relation of the rings to the solar cycle was much stronger than to any climatological factors “Sigrid Dengel University of Edinburgh
To do this, Ms Dengel and University of Edinburgh colleagues Mr Dominik Aeby and Professor John Grace obtained slices of spruce tree trunks.
These had been freshly-felled from the Forest of Ae in Dumfriesshire, Scotland, by Forest Research, the research branch of the UK’s Forestry Commission.
The trees had been planted in 1953 and felled in 2006.
The researchers froze the trunk slices, to prevent the wood shrinking, then scanned them on to a computer and used software to count the number and width of the growth rings.
As the trees aged, they showed a usual decline in growth.
However, during a number of years, the trees’ growth also particularly slowed. These years correlated with periods when a relatively low level of cosmic rays reached the Earth’s surface.
When the intensity of cosmic rays reaching the Earth’s surface was higher, the rate of tree growth was faster.
Read the entire BBC report here
This is somewhat unrelated, but this guy is predicting a warmer November with a massive cold outbreak in December
http://truthbehindthescience.blogspot.com/2009/10/may-have-been-coldest-october-starts-on.html
He talks about the AO and NAO turning positive which will lead to that warmth. However, NOAA’s website is showing prediction of another sharp downturn in the AO and the NAO being predicted to just barely turn positive and then turning negative again or stay positive.
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao.sprd2.gif
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/nao.sprd2.gif
Which trees grow faster with more cosmic rays and which grow slower?
To assume that all trees will follow the same rule is to stop looking.
And what about other flora?
It’s a good find, though. Keep going.
This is typical rookie postgraduate mistake. By objectively looking for a natural correlation she is now left with one she can’t explain. She should have first pre-filtered here data to a foregone conclusion that she had a plausible explanation for. Then the story would have been a lot neater and tidier and could be accepted by the wider scientific community. Poor girl, she probably still believes in the ideals of Einstein and Popper.
I thought the same thing as soon as I read it. Wouldn’t Svensmark’s work suggest cooler temps during periods of high cosmic rays which should result it slower growth? Can anyone shed light on it.
From the BBC report (good BTW),
“As for the mechanism, we are puzzled.”
Ms Dengel’s team proposes two main hypotheses as to how cosmic ray particles could influence the growth of trees.
The first idea is that cosmic rays ionise gases in the atmosphere, creating molecules around which clouds condense, therefore increasing cloud over.
This mechanism is hotly debated among scientists, and evidence for it is weak.
One study published in 2006 suggested it may account for as little as 2% of the variation in cloud cover across the UK.
But if it does occur, then an increase in cloud cover and haze would diffuse the amount of solar radiation reaching the trees.
As diffuse radiation penetrates forest canopies better than direct light, it would increase the amount of radiation that plants capture, and increase photosynthesis by trees, boosting growth.
“Or there is some direct effect,” says Ms Dengel.
What that might be is unknown, but experiments in space have shown that cosmic rays can have some positive impacts on biological materials.
I’d add that there is a great deal of evidence that physical processes like radiation and magnetism directly affect biological processes, mostly positively (ie organisms grow faster), although why this happens is something of a mystery.
my understanding of tree growth (which is limited) is that growth is constrained mostly by availability of water. Which (to me) would imply that cosmic rays are modulating rainfall, which has been reported in a number of other studies.
The argument used that diffuse sunlight reaches more leaves and produces more growth seems tenuous and not at all robust. Might the diffuse sunlight be from clouds that produce rain and, as mentioned before, warmer nights ?
Just a thought re why trees might exibit more growth during cooler, high GCR, and likely more cloudy periods could be due to the nightime insulating effect of cloud cover. The days might be cooler, but the nightime less so. I find that it’s the cooling nights of autumn that shuts down growth at the end of each year rather than the cooling daytime temp.
Another possible explanation for extra growth during high cosmic ray intervals is that the ultimate result of high cosmic rays is to dehumidify the atmosphere. So an increase in cosmic rays will result at first in an increase in cloud cover but later, as the liquid water rains out, leaves decreased water in the atmosphere resulting in decreased greenhouse effect and cooler temperatures, but perhaps more sunlight due to cloud cover declining to a lower level than before. This assumes of course that cloud cover varies with absolute humidity which I think is a safe assumption.
meemoe_uk (17:31:01) :
‘Odd. I thought they’d grow more when the cosmic rays are lower. The UK is a climate anomaly. Maybe the wet compensates for the cold.’
We have had a cooler/wetter spring/summer in Col, Oh USA this year.
I have had to cut our lawn more often than during hotter/dryer spring/summer. Is it do to cosmic rays, sun spots, moon orbit, earth tilt or a combination of a lot of “things”?
Hopefully, time will tell.
The increased plant growth from diffuse sunlight is well accepted and uncontroversial. FYI is a link to a text on growing grapes that refers to the effect. Google will give you many more.
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=lU4HO2FeWoEC&pg=PA260&lpg=PA260&dq=plant+growth+diffuse+sunlight&source=bl&ots=CK4qG3X5u_&sig=OnMa9NrDyoSJL8DBnEeTn7q0eVY&hl=en&ei=Xh3dSu-kHdKSkQXS6NwT&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CBwQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=plant%20growth%20diffuse%20sunlight&f=false
The study found that tree growth changes from changes in temperature and precipitation were so small as to be almost non-existent.
Which means the GCR effect is NOT through temperature or precipitation changes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis
Radiation hormesis is a classic example of an ‘incorrect’ concept that has to be rejected for regulatory reasons. However, T. D. Luckey found plenty of literature support for his monograph of 1991. There is a link in the Wikipedia article to a 20 page overview (.pdf file) by Luckey.
stumpy (17:09:58) :
“I recall another paper that found base flows in very large river basins also responded to GCR, possibly due to changes in rainfall and evaporation transpiration. Other studies have also found solar influences on rainfall. Others found solar influences on ENSO, and ENSO drives the PDO etc…
Seems wherever we look the sun influences the biosphere and the climate, with some even suggesting influences on volcanic and seismic activity”.
Keep that thoughts stumpy and forget about the rest you wrote.
We are getting there slowly but surely.
Hmmmm…. novice observation here. If during high GCR there is greater tree growth, would this sequester abnormally large amounts of CO2? If this is so, then would that exacerbate the down-turn in temperature? And if that is true, once some sort of bottom temperature is reached does the biological matter die, releasing the abnormally large amounts of CO2, causing a temperature rebound?
Dengel, S.; Aeby, D; & Grace, J. (2009). A relationship between galactic cosmic radiation and tree rings. New Phytologist 184(3), 545-551. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.2009.03026.x.
The closing sentences from the conclusions:
“[…] in a study of 305 tree-ring chronologies from North America, periods of 18.6 yr and 10.5 yr were found in 286 and 244 instances (Currie, 1991), respectively. These observations have been largely ignored, perhaps because no underlying mechanism could be found to explain the intriguing results.”
Again we are reminded to listen to Currie.
We must overcome the resistance to studying & commenting on things that are not well-understood. Open discourse should not be derided & oppressed.
Anthony, thank you for running this story — this is an important clue.
I suspect this has to do with diffuse radiation’s effects on photosynthesis. See:
Gu, L., D. Baldocchi, S. B. Verma, T. A. Black, T. Vesala, E. M. Falge, and P. R. Dowty (2002), Advantages of diffuse radiation for terrestrial ecosystem productivity, J. Geophys. Res., 107(D6), 4050, doi:10.1029/2001JD001242.
Abstract
Clouds and aerosols alter the proportion of diffuse radiation in global solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface. It is known that diffuse and direct beam radiation differ in the way they transfer through plant canopies and affect the summation of nonlinear processes like photosynthesis differently than what would occur at the leaf scale. We compared the relative efficiencies of canopy photosynthesis to diffuse and direct photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) for a Scots pine forest, an aspen forest, a mixed deciduous forest, a tallgrass prairie and a winter wheat crop. The comparison was based on the seasonal patterns of the parameters that define the canopy photosynthetic responses to diffuse PAR and those that define the responses to direct PAR. These parameters were inferred from half-hourly tower CO2 flux measurements. We found that: (1) diffuse radiation results in higher light use efficiencies by plant canopies; (2) diffuse radiation has much less tendency to cause canopy photosynthetic saturation; (3) the advantages of diffuse radiation over direct radiation increase with radiation level; (4) temperature as well as vapor pressure deficit can cause different responses in diffuse and direct canopy photosynthesis, indicating that their impacts on terrestrial ecosystem carbon assimilation may depend on radiation regimes and thus sky conditions. These findings call for different treatments of diffuse and direct radiation in models of global primary production, and studies of the roles of clouds and aerosols in global carbon cycle.
See also:
Still, C. J., et al. (2009), Influence of clouds and diffuse radiation on ecosystem-atmosphere CO2 and CO18O exchanges, J. Geophys. Res., 114, G01018, doi:10.1029/2007JG000675.
Abstract:
This study evaluates the potential impact of clouds on ecosystem CO2 and CO2 isotope fluxes (“isofluxes”) in two contrasting ecosystems (a broadleaf deciduous forest and a C4 grassland) in a region for which cloud cover, meteorological, and isotope data are available for driving the isotope-enabled land surface model (ISOLSM). Our model results indicate a large impact of clouds on ecosystem CO2 fluxes and isofluxes. Despite lower irradiance on partly cloudy and cloudy days, predicted forest canopy photosynthesis was substantially higher than on clear, sunny days, and the highest carbon uptake was achieved on the cloudiest day. This effect was driven by a large increase in light-limited shade leaf photosynthesis following an increase in the diffuse fraction of irradiance. Photosynthetic isofluxes, by contrast, were largest on partly cloudy days, as leaf water isotopic composition was only slightly depleted and photosynthesis was enhanced, as compared to adjacent clear-sky days. On the cloudiest day, the forest exhibited intermediate isofluxes: although photosynthesis was highest on this day, leaf-to-atmosphere isofluxes were reduced from a feedback of transpiration on canopy relative humidity and leaf water. Photosynthesis and isofluxes were both reduced in the C4 grass canopy with increasing cloud cover and diffuse fraction as a result of near-constant light limitation of photosynthesis. These results suggest that some of the unexplained variation in global mean δ 18O of CO2 may be driven by large-scale changes in clouds and aerosols and their impacts on diffuse radiation, photosynthesis, and relative humidity.
I wonder how many times these trees were struck by ice storms? Here in the Ozarks, stricken by the horrible January ice storm, the trees have grown faster than I’ve ever seen trees grow this summer. Much faster than last summer… lots of precip both years. The trees appeared to be boosting energy in repairing damage and sprouting new limbs to replace lost limbs. They produced little or no acorns or hickory nuts.
“I recall another paper that found base flows in very large river basins also responded to GCR, possibly due to changes in rainfall and evaporation transpiration.
This study would indicate transpiration (from increased plant growth) is the main cause.
As I said, a very interesting study that will rattle more than a few cages.
I wonder how many times these trees were struck by ice storms? Here in the Ozarks, stricken by the horrible January ice storm, the trees have grown faster than I’ve ever seen trees grow this summer. Much faster than last summer… lots of precip both years. The trees appeared to be boosting energy in repairing damage and sprouting new limbs to replace lost limbs. They produced little or no acorns, pine cones or hickory nuts.
Dan Lee (18:14:33) : Wow. If we can see the influence of GCRs in tree rings, where else have they left their mark?
Oh, I don’t know… maybe in the thicker fur on my cats and rabbits, my stiffer hair the last year or three, my desire to migrate has returned (had it in the ’60s and ’70s then it went away for a while… but the wanderlust has returned…) and in the early migration of birds, whales, et. al. reported here.
It was only recently that they found the magnetite grain in brains (including yours) that some critters use for navigation. (and that would also explain why some folks have a great “sense of direction”…). Is it that far a leap to think that 4 billion years of evolution might have created a mechanism to detect a major environmental influence on how cold and wet it gets and how much food is around… Sure, we’ve got gene maps now. But we still don’t know how to read the map, or where the roads go…
“[…] in a study of 305 tree-ring chronologies from North America, periods of 18.6 yr and 10.5 yr were found in 286 and 244 instances (Currie, 1991), respectively.
I think I’d like to read that paper. Tomorrow I’ll see if I find a freebie.
Plants hate extremes. Heat stresses. Cold stresses. Trees have Deep roots. A drier than normal summer probably wouldn’t affect a tree as much as, say, a corn stalk. Several in a row, might.
I vote for warm, and cloudy over hot, and sunny.
More CRs more cloud more rain wetter soil more nutrient uptake more tree growth?
Back2Bat (17:51:19) : “Maybe the particles get rid of pests like I hope the coming cold will do.”
Tie that to Australian folklore: 1. Following a dust storm the number of people in the general area catching diseases drops significantly. 2. Following three nights of frosts… ditto.
Below is a readable description of how plant growth has been increasing on a global basis based on satellite measurements.
You’ll have to filter out the usual ‘it must be climate change’ bias, eg,
Clearly, carbon dioxide fertilization couldn’t be solely responsible for the change; climate change must be playing a role as well.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalGarden/
Note how variable this greening (called NPP) is, from the following graph. Nothing like the straight line increase in CO2.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalGarden/Images/yearly_anomaly.pdf
I wonder what the correlation to GCRs is?
The hypothesis they propose is that as more clouds diffuse the sunlight the amount of photosynthesis is increased. I presume they’re suggesting that photo-inhibition is caused by excess sunlight when clouds are scarcer and this translates to reduced wood production (narrower rings). Sounds plausible, but needs some data on Sitka spruce physiology not mentioned in the abstract.