UPDATE: Lead author Ben Laken responds in comments below.
I’ve reported several times at WUWT on the galactic cosmic ray theory proposed by Henrik Svensmark which suggests that changes in the sun’s magnetic field modulate the density of Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCRs) which in turn seed cloud formation on Earth, which changes the albedo/reflectivity to affect Earth’s energy balance and hence global climate.
A new paper published today in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics suggests that the relationship has been established.
Figure 1 below shows a correlation, read it with the top and bottom graph combined vertically.
As the authors write in the abstract:
These results provide perhaps the most compelling evidence presented thus far of a GCR-climate relationship.
Dr. Roy Spencer has mentioned that it doesn’t take much in the way of cloud cover changes to add up to the “global warming signal” that has been observed. He writes in The Great Global Warming Blunder:
The most obvious way for warming to be caused naturally is for small, natural fluctuations in the circulation patterns of the atmosphere and ocean to result in a 1% or 2% decrease in global cloud cover. Clouds are the Earth’s sunshade, and if cloud cover changes for any reason, you have global warming — or global cooling.
Well, it seems that Laken, Kniveton, and Frogley have found just such a small effect. Here’s the abstract and select passages from the paper, along with a link to the full paper:
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 10941-10948, 2010
doi:10.5194/acp-10-10941-2010
Cosmic rays linked to rapid mid-latitude cloud changes
B. A. Laken , D. R. Kniveton, and M. R. Frogley
Abstract. The effect of the Galactic Cosmic Ray (GCR) flux on Earth’s climate is highly uncertain. Using a novel sampling approach based around observing periods of significant cloud changes, a statistically robust relationship is identified between short-term GCR flux changes and the most rapid mid-latitude (60°–30° N/S) cloud decreases operating over daily timescales; this signal is verified in surface level air temperature (SLAT) reanalysis data. A General Circulation Model (GCM) experiment is used to test the causal relationship of the observed cloud changes to the detected SLAT anomalies. Results indicate that the anomalous cloud changes were responsible for producing the observed SLAT changes, implying that if there is a causal relationship between significant decreases in the rate of GCR flux (~0.79 GU, where GU denotes a change of 1% of the 11-year solar cycle amplitude in four days) and decreases in cloud cover (~1.9 CU, where CU denotes a change of 1% cloud cover in four days), an increase in SLAT (~0.05 KU, where KU denotes a temperature change of 1 K in four days) can be expected. The influence of GCRs is clearly distinguishable from changes in solar irradiance and the interplanetary magnetic field. However, the results of the GCM experiment are found to be somewhat limited by the ability of the model to successfully reproduce observed cloud cover. These results provide perhaps the most compelling evidence presented thus far of a GCR-climate relationship. From this analysis we conclude that a GCR-climate relationship is governed by both short-term GCR changes and internal atmospheric precursor conditions.
I found this portion interesting related to the figure above:
The composite sample shows a positive correlation between statistically significant cloud changes and variations in the short-term GCR flux (Fig. 1): increases in the GCR flux
occur around day −5 of the composite, and correspond to significant localised mid-latitude increases in cloud change. After this time, the GCR flux undergoes a statistically significant decrease (1.2 GU) centred on the key date of the composite; these changes correspond to widespread statistically significant decreases in cloud change (3.5 CU, 1.9 CU globallyaveraged) over mid-latitude regions.
and this…
The strong and statistically robust connection identified here between the most rapid cloud decreases over mid-latitude regions and short-term changes in the GCR flux is clearly distinguishable from the effects of solar irradiance and IMF variations. The observed anomalous changes show a strong latitudinal symmetry around the equator; alone, this pattern
gives a good indication of an external forcing agent, as
there is no known mode of internal climate variability at the
timescale of analysis, which could account for this distinctive
response. It is also important to note that these anomalous
changes are detected over regions where the quality of
satellite-based cloud retrievals is relatively robust; results of
past studies concerned with high-latitude anomalous cloud
changes have been subject to scrutiny due to a low confidence
in polar cloud retrievals (Laken and Kniveton, 2010;
Todd and Kniveton, 2001) but the same limitations do not
apply here.
Although mid-latitude cloud detections are more robust
than those over high latitudes, Sun and Bradley (2002) identified
a distinctive pattern of high significance between GCRs
and the ISCCP dataset over the Atlantic Ocean that corresponded
to the METEOSAT footprint. This bias does not
appear to influence the results presented in this work: Fig. 6 shows the rates of anomalous IR-detected cloud change occurring over Atlantic, Pacific and land regions of the midlatitudes during the composite period, and a comparable pattern of cloud change is observed over all regions, indicating no significant bias is present.
Conclusions
This work has demonstrated the presence of a small but statistically significant influence of GCRs on Earth’s atmosphere over mid-latitude regions. This effect is present in
both ISCCP satellite data and NCEP/NCAR reanalysis data for at least the last 20 years suggesting that small fluctuations in solar activity may be linked to changes in the Earth’s atmosphere via a relationship between the GCR flux and cloud cover; such a connection may amplify small changes in solar activity. In addition, a GCR – cloud relationship may also act in conjunction with other likely solar – terrestrial relationships concerning variations in solar UV (Haigh, 1996) and total solar irradiance (Meehl et al., 2009). The climatic forcings resulting from such solar – terrestrial links may have had a significant impact on climate prior to the onset of anthropogenic warming, accounting for the presence of solar cycle relationships detectable in palaeoclimatic records (e.g.,Bond et al., 2001; Neff et al., 2001; Mauas et al., 2008).
Further detailed investigation is required to better understand GCR – atmosphere relationships. Specifically, the use of both ground-based and satellite-based cloud/atmospheric monitoring over high-resolution timescales for extended periods of time is required. In addition, information regarding potentially important microphysical properties such as aerosols, cloud droplet size, and atmospheric electricity must also be considered. Through such monitoring efforts, in addition to both computational modelling (such as that of Zhou and Tinsley, 2010) and experimental efforts (such as that of Duplissy et al., 2010) we may hope to better understand the effects described here.
It seems they have found the signal. This is a compelling finding because it now opens a pathway and roadmap on where and how to look. Expect more to come.
The full paper is here: Final Revised Paper (PDF, 2.2 MB)
h/t to The Hockey Schtick
vukcevic says:
November 27, 2010 at 4:50 am
You could also look at this:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2006/space_weather_link.html
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 27, 2010 at 5:17 am
Goes the other way: thunderstorms influence the ionosphere.
– Because that way it suits the CONSTANT SUN hypothesis
You should really stop spreading misinformation.
-Agree.
– All climate science should be strictly censored; people of this kind are danger to neo-Stalinist approach to the climate science!
anna v says:
November 26, 2010 at 12:00 pm
“Α 3% change in albedo can make all the difference in the energy budget to reverse temperature trends.”
A 3% change in albedo is over 10 watts/m^2 of forcing. Compare to total forcing from all man-made greenhouse gases at 2 watts/m^2.
That’s enough to cause an ice age if it’s a deficit or an Eocene climatic optimum if it’s a surplus. 0.3% increase would be enough to reverse whatever warming was caused by anthropogenic GHGs. Given the earth has been in an ice age for the past 3 million years it seems like only the clinically insane would be worried about a few additional watts of forcing. What we should really fear, perched as we are on the old side of an interglacial, is a few watts less forcing. We’re at a tipping point alright – the tipping point that triggers global glaciation.
Leif Svalgaard says: (November 27, 2010 at 5:11 am)
“If in an election [except in Florida, of course], there are 100 votes for candidate A and 91 for B, A wins.”
That only applies to areas where the average age is over 80, such as Naples & West Palm Beach. It is caused by having an additional 10 ballots where no one can tell who the hell they were actually voting for in the first place.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 27, 2010 at 5:11 am
When we are measuring cross sections, for example proton proton scattering, we measure the number of particles in the beam and the square root of that gives us the error in the incoming flux, and we measure the number of interactions, and the error is the square root of that number.
I do not see a difference in the neutron counts, it is measuring the number of particles in the beam, and the cloud tracking is measuring the number of interactions. Square root of the number is the error that should be used for the incoming beam.
btw people doing polls give errors according to the number of people checked.
Leif Svalgaard said:
“The effects go the other way. It is the polar vortex that controls the downward flux of NOx.”
Maybe so,Leif.
But the amount of NOx available to be drawn downward varies with the level of solar activity.
So the polar vortex may be initially driven by seasonal insolation and temperature variability but the intensity it can attain would be influenced by the quantity of ozone present would it not ?
That ozone quantity would be affected by the amount of NOx available for drawdown.
The more NOx available for drawdown (more is available when the sun is active) the more the ozone is depleted, the colder and more intense (positive) the vortex can become and the more cooling of the atmospheric layers (including the stratosphere) there is and the higher the tropopause rises and the more poleward the jets can shift.
So when the sun is less active there is less NOx available for drawdown, ozone quantities increase with a warming effect, the vortex cannot become so intense and it adopts a flabbier form with a larger horizontal extent at tropopause and surface with more equatorward jets.
Have I missed something ?
Stephen Wilde says:
November 27, 2010 at 6:29 am
The most evident reaction at the famous “Ozone Hole” on antarctica is that of protons (hydrogen nucleii) reducing O3 to Water, but it is also possible the reduction of NO2 to NO (nitric to nitrous oxide), even to N° by protons.
Balanced half-reaction Eo / V
2NO2(g) + 8H+ + 8e- N2(g) + 4H2O 1.363
NO2- + 2H+ + e- NO(g) + H2O 1.202
There are other possibilities, however as the potentials are positive its reduction is easier.
vukcevic says:
November 27, 2010 at 7:14 am
vukcevic says:
November 27, 2010 at 4:50 am
“Goes the other way: thunderstorms influence the ionosphere.”
– Because that way it suits the CONSTANT SUN hypothesis
No, because that is what the data shows: “Researchers discovered that tides of air generated by intense thunderstorm activity over South America, Africa and Southeast Asia were altering the structure of the ionosphere.”
anna v says:
November 27, 2010 at 7:43 am
I do not see a difference in the neutron counts, it is measuring the number of particles in the beam, and the cloud tracking is measuring the number of interactions. Square root of the number is the error that should be used for the incoming beam.
The difference is that in ordinary counting [cross-section, pools] the assumption is that there is constant, real quantity that we are sampling randomly. In that case the error is indeed the square root. But we are not doing that here. The count is the value we want, and it has no error. I gave you a simple example of counting sunspots. If there are four spots at a given time, it is meaningless to say that there are 4+/-sqrt(4) spots. There are just four spots [ignoring, of course that different people may see different spots – but that spread is not equal to the square root of the number of spots].
Perhaps this will help: The count given is the average count over a hour. But the instrument actually does not count for an hour before giving a rate. It counts every, say, 10 seconds. Let us say that the 10-second count is 18. Now, I would say that there is no error on that, but will humor you and assume that the error is sqrt(18) = 4.24. This would be the standard deviation of many such 10-second counts. The total count for an hour [assuming constant flux for that hour] would then be about 3600/10 = 360 times larger, namely 360*18 = 6480. The error on this average is only 4.24/sqrt(359) = 0.22, because the errors on an average of N values is only the error on each value divided by the square root of the number of value [minus 1].
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_error_(statistics)
You would claim that the error on the hourly value would be 80.
Just another thought. Water vapor molecules have a dipole moment which would cause them to orient to an electric field such as the one that appears across clouds and is modulated by cosmic rays. This would likely affect the condensation process.
Stephen Wilde says:
November 27, 2010 at 7:49 am
You have to take into account there are two distinct seasons: SH summertime where the influence of UV is expected to be higher and wintertime where it is expected, the reduction of ozone.
As I have said, please do not consider water tight compartments among phenomena: There it happens all kinds of CHARGES´phenomena, whether if considered almost inmaterial “magical” light radiation, chemical, physico-chemical and all sizes (wavelength) of waves, ondulating like an alternate current, crossing, mixing, reacting among them, and We running after them to stick each one of them with a different Name, owned exclusively by a branch of science…or even by some institutions (like IPCC exclusivity on CO2 🙂 )
Stephen Wilde says:
November 27, 2010 at 7:49 am
Have I missed something ?
Yes, the looooong discussion on another thread [even though you were a participant]. NOx is produced by very large [and rare] solar proton events [there has not been any the past 4 or 5 years].
pochas says:
November 27, 2010 at 8:28 am
It rains AFTER lightning (visible or not, after clouds´s discharge): See my post above:
Enneagram says:
November 27, 2010 at 5:38 am
Anna, the error in the poll count has to do with incorrect recording of the opinion, people fibbing, or later changing their minds, not the count of people polled.
Water vapor (humidity) does a powerful job of keeping us warm when there are few clouds due to a lack of volcanic plumes. CO2, not.
Lack humidity and the overnight temps will drop in proportion to the dryness.
There could be some reaction with a few volcanic gases (trace or not so trace) with GCR’s, that’s all I’m going to say.
About 89% of incoming cosmic ray particles are simple protons (hydrogen nuclei), nearly 10% are helium nuclei (alpha particles), and slightly under 1% of cosmic ray nuclei are those of the heavier elements. Solitary electrons (much like beta particles, although their ultimate source is unknown) constitute about 1% of the particles that make up galactic cosmic rays.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 27, 2010 at 5:17 am
You should really stop spreading misinformation.
Yet another esteemed colleague of yours, this time Dr. Judith Curry does have a different opinion:
curryja | November 27, 2010 at 12:00
Thank you, this is a very interesting analysis and it will be discussed further when I get to the series on arctic climate.
( http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm )
“Stephen Wilde says:
November 27, 2010 at 7:49 am
Have I missed something ?
Yes, the looooong discussion on another thread [even though you were a participant]. NOx is produced by very large [and rare] solar proton events [there has not been any the past 4 or 5 years].”
No Leif, the NOx production is from a range of solar induced reactions. You said this previously:
The NOx flux is due to rare solar proton events down below 80 km, AND rare energetic relativistic electron precipitation [at 60-80 km] AND ALSO 1-10 keV electron precipitation [aurorae at 120 km].
and elsewhere I found this:
“Our finding is an important one because it will help scientists to understand how the DIFFUSE aurora (i.e. not the normal visible aurora) leads to changes in the chemistry of the Earth’s upper atmosphere, including effects on ozone at high altitude, which may affect temperature right through the atmosphere,” said co-author Professor Richard Horne of the British Antarctic Survey”
from here:
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/new-research-provides-insights-176822.aspx
on which I commented as follows:
Such as contributing to variability in the downward NOx flux which depletes ozone for a cooling effect in the regions above 45km when the sun is more active ?
And which allows recovery of ozone for a warming effect above 45km when the sun is quiet as per the recent Haigh data ?
So we have a wide range of reactions that are dependent on solar activity levels all of which affect the downward flux of NOx.
It matters not that the reactive events do not penetrate deeply. The product is NOx which then drifts downward into the polar vortices.
“The diffuse aurora is not the same as the discrete aurora, also known as the northern and southern lights. The discrete aurora looks like fiery moving curtains of colorful light and can be seen by the unaided eye, while the diffuse aurora is much fainter but more extensive. The diffuse aurora, which typically accounts for THREE-QUARTERS of the energy input into the upper atmosphere at night, varies according to the season and the 11-year solar cycle.
You also said:
” The RELATIVE IMPORTANCE of the rare events and the low-energy auroral contribution IS UNKNOWN.”
So your comments omit important information do they not ?
I put it to you that taking all these types of reactions as a whole the downward NOx flux is closely dependent on the level of solar activity, tightly controls the amount of NOx available for drawdown and thereby directly influences the polar vortices by altering ozone quantities above 45km and indirectly affects the entire vertical temperature gradient down to the tropopause.
Ed Murphy says:
November 27, 2010 at 9:17 am
Water vapor (humidity) does a powerful job of keeping us warm when there are few clouds due to a lack of volcanic plumes. CO2, not.
Lack humidity and the overnight temps will drop in proportion to the dryness.
Where I live we usually have more than 80%, and when we have, say 16 degrees celsius we feel cold but if we use a dehumidifier we feel it warmer, why?…..because if we do not stick names to things, these behave like reason says: Where do you feel it colder: In a TUB filled with water at 16 degrees or out of it?. You see? , where is it better energy (charge) conduction?
@Juraj V. says:
November 25, 2010 at 12:52 am
http://climate4you.com/images/CloudCoverAllLevel%20AndWaterColumnSince1983.gif
“There are some trends, but not in direct relation with sun cycles. But obviously changes in cloudiness has serious effect on climate.”
In the cooler years of 1985/6/7 and 1992/3, there is an increase in low level clouds and a decrease in mid level clouds. Solar driven temperature variations may have a serious effect on cloud clover.
Stephen, you really hang your hat on these very small Solar perturbations affecting climate. Yet you can’t bring yourself to see CO2 as having at least similar capacity even though the two sides of the argument, yours and that of AGW’ers, seem to be suggesting that the Earth is highly sensitive to very, very, very small changes in outside influences (I consider both Solar and anthropogenic CO2 influences as being extrinsic to Earth’s natural atmosphere).
My case is that the capacity of our Earth’s oceans and atmosphere have intrinsic energy flow/exchange/oscillation strong enough to overwhelm, limit, and bury these tiny outside changing influences to within the range of its variability. In other words, if every dotted “i” and crossed “t” in both CO2 and solar influences were known to be unchanging and stable, we would still get the incredible variety of weather pattern variability we now experience.
Pamela Gray says:
November 27, 2010 at 9:01 am
Anna, the error in the poll count has to do with incorrect recording of the opinion, people fibbing, or later changing their minds, not the count of people polled.
I’ll agree with Anna on this. The errors quoted by the pollsters is indeed [as it should be] just the square root. This is the ‘sampling error’. The real error [because of fibbing etc] is unknown and not quotable.
Now, my worked example was not correct, BTW. The correct analysis is to assume no errors. What is reported is the number of ‘clicks’ from the counter. There are no errors on that, you hear 18 clicks, so 18 clicks it is. Or you see 4 sunspots, so 4 it is. If several 10-second intervals give clicks of 15, 18, 20, 19, 18 , 16, … it means that the cosmic ray intensity [going through your counter] varies [not that there are errors]. If you on several days see 4, 3, 7, 2, 0, 6, … spots, it means that there were a different number of spots on the sun, not that there are errors in your count.
Perhaps a real example: the first 48 hours of 2004, the McMurdo counter recorded an average count per hour of 8929. The square root of that is 94. Is that the ‘error’? The 48 individual counts varied a lot less. The standard variation was 27. The average change from hour to hour was 14. The cosmic ray intensity was seemingly rather steady [variations at other stations were similar, so whatever changes there were, were not random counting errors, but simply small changes in the actual cosmic ray intensity].
I stand corrected. So the error doesn’t have a thing to do with changed answers. However, I always wondered what kind of person would fib on a poll and how many would do it just to screw with the results (especially with exit polls). I have been known to change my mind later but not fib.
Stephen Wilde says:
November 27, 2010 at 9:28 am
You said this previously:
The NOx flux is due to rare solar proton events down below 80 km, AND rare energetic relativistic electron precipitation [at 60-80 km] AND ALSO 1-10 keV electron precipitation [aurorae at 120 km].
The production at 120 km is 1000 times smaller simply because the density of the air is 1000 times smaller, so plays a role a 1000 times less.
The diffuse aurora, which typically accounts for THREE-QUARTERS of the energy input into the upper atmosphere at night, varies according to the season and the 11-year solar cycle.
That energy is in the form of joule heating and does not produce NOx
Annika Seppala’s thesis has a good discussion of ‘Observations of Production and Transport of NOx formed by Energetic Particle Precipitation in the Polar Night Atmosphere’: http://www.doria.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/12013/observat.pdf
directly influences the polar vortices
The polar vortices are extremely stable and are not influenced from above. You see, it is not that NOx does not have an effect. It is the specific mechanism you propose that doesn’t work.
vukcevic says:
November 27, 2010 at 9:28 am
Yet another esteemed colleague of yours, this time Dr. Judith Curry does have a different opinion […] it will be discussed further when I get to the series on arctic climate.
She was being nice to you. Didn’t say that your stuff was any good. I say it is junk.
@Pamela Gray says:
November 27, 2010 at 9:51 am
“..these very small Solar perturbations affecting climate.”
“..these tiny outside changing influences…”
“..solar influences were known to be unchanging and stable, we would still get the incredible variety of weather pattern variability we now experience.”
One could at least see if the very very large short term changes in the solar wind speed velocity/density correlate to surface temperature anomalies.
Hi Pamela.
I don’t think I would equate (in terms of influence) the changes in CO2 with changes in the energy flux in from the sun and out to space.
CO2 only has an effect in slowing energy loss to space but since CO2 works primarily by increasing downward IR it can have little or no effect overall because the extra downward IR just accelerates evaporation at the sea surface, speeds up the hydrological cycle and gets ejected to space faster so the net effect is at or near zero.
On the other hand even small changes in the net global energy balance from the sun will have large effects over time because that will involve changes to ocean heat content and that is what controls air temperatures most effectively though the oceans do seem to vary (for reasons related to their internal behaviour) in the rate at which they release energy absorbed from the sun back to the air.
As regards the oceans generally however I accept what you say. They have the power to supplement or offset solar influences for long periods of time. I have dealt with that in my broader hypothesis which suggests that the phasing of the oceanic / solar interplay is the key to pretty much all climate change including the switches from ice ages to interglacials.
The thing that is most exercising my mind at prersent is the speed with which we have shifted from an active sun and positive polar vortices to a quiet sun and negative polar vortices.
That has been a real surprise to me and requires an explanation because it seems to make a huge difference to mid latitude temperatures with relatively little effect at the poles or in the tropics.
The answer must lie in the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere. That profile appears to be highly sensitive to solar variability but the mechanism is missing.
By the application of logic based on observations and the laws of physics I am narrowing it down to the effects of solar induced ozone chemistry in the region above 45km.
I am seeking falsification of that proposition. So far Leif’s comments are, to me , unconvincing. Can you do better ?