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
“What matter must be the net, and as far as I know that is positive.”
Exactly, but from observations I think it is negative hence the cooling stratosphere and mesosphere when the sun was more active and a cessation of such cooling and possible start of warming now that the sun is less active.
The temperature trend in the mesosphere and stratosphere from 2007 onward should resolve the issue but for the period 2004 to 2007 my view prevails.
“I think it is the other way around: the jets control the tropopause, etc. Educate me otherwise with links, refs, etc.”
Have a look at sudden stratospheric warmings. They depress the tropopause and send the jets equatorward imitating a negative polar vortex. Warmer stratosphere gives lower tropopause and cooler stratosphere gives higher tropopause.
“only when the polar vortex sucks it down, so the vortex has already changed.”
But the amount of NOx available for drawdown limits the intensity that the vortex can attain.
The height of the tropopause controls the latitudinal position of the jets. The information is readily available.
“It is Harder’s data, not Haighs. And the current thinking [guess] is that that happens in every solar cycle, but that we only now have discovered it.”
Noted but my hypothesis anticipated it.
“solar activity declines to almost zero every eleven years.”
Not relevant. It is total activity over time that matters. Even with zero activity there is a basic level of ozone destruction in the upper atmosphere and creation in the lower atmosphere. What shifts the jets is variations over and above the basic level.
vukcevic says:
November 27, 2010 at 3:11 pm
Very interesting on the 23rd :-
http://squall.sfsu.edu/scripts/nhemjetstream_model.html
http://www.pa.op.dlr.de/arctic/index.html
Stephen Wilde says:
November 27, 2010 at 5:13 pm
However from 50km upwards the temperature of the atmosphere decreases with height due (at least in part) to that ozone depleting cooling effect.
No, that is peanuts. The dominant reason is that there is simply a lot less ozone to begin with as the density is up to 1000 times lower.
“What matter must be the net, and as far as I know that is positive.”
Exactly, but from observations I think it is negative hence the cooling stratosphere and mesosphere when the sun was more active and a cessation of such cooling and possible start of warming now that the sun is less active.
What observations? The net is always positive as the UV is by far the dominant source
but for the period 2004 to 2007 my view prevails.
Any ‘climate’ view should hold over decades.
Have a look at sudden stratospheric warmings. They depress the tropopause and send the jets equatorward imitating a negative polar vortex. Warmer stratosphere gives lower tropopause and cooler stratosphere gives higher tropopause.
Other way around, stratospheric warming moves upwards initiated by the jet.
“only when the polar vortex sucks it down, so the vortex has already changed.”
But the amount of NOx available for drawdown limits the intensity that the vortex can attain.
The vortex is controlled from below.
The height of the tropopause controls the latitudinal position of the jets. The information is readily available.
The position of the jets controls the height of the tropopause.
“It is Harder’s data, not Haighs. And the current thinking [guess] is that that happens in every solar cycle, but that we only now have discovered it.”
Noted but my hypothesis anticipated it.
For every solar cycle?
“solar activity declines to almost zero every eleven years.”
Not relevant. It is total activity over time that matters.
No, the chemistry [with the exception of chlorine] changes over time scale much shorter than a solar cycle.
Even with zero activity there is a basic level of ozone destruction in the upper atmosphere
No, there are no solar proton events.
Stephen Wilde
Consider this quote delivered at Leif Svalgaard says:
November 27, 2010 at 1:01 pm
“The winds in the Polar Night Jet, which reach their peak of about 80 m/s near 60 km altitude, act as a transport barrier between polar and mid-latitude air, blocking meridional transport and isolating the air in the polar stratosphere and thus forming the polar vortex. The edge of the vortex is usually near 60◦ N/S and it extends from approximately 16 km to the mesosphere. The isolation is greater, and the polar vortex more stable, in the Antarctic where there is less wave activity affecting the vortex than in the Arctic. In the Arctic, the atmospheric wave activity disturbs the vortex, leading to greater mixing and faster downward motion, compared with those in the Antarctic vortex [Solomon, 1999].”
Forget about Solomon. He has it wrong. The wave is a result, a ripple in the atmosphere, not a cause. Ripples are caused by atmospheric movement, we call it ‘wind’ and it is driven by pressure differences between two places. Air moves to low pressure zones from high pressure zones. Vortex activity in the Antarctic changes less because it is always massive, driven by massive atmospheric pressure at the south pole (highest on the planet in winter, below average in summer) and grossly deficient atmospheric pressure (lowest on the planet) at about 60-70°S.The relationship is much more stable than in the northern hemisphere where there is a higher pressure at 60-70N than at the north pole in the middle of winter when pressure over the Arctic is highest. This is a situation set up for instability. The flux in climate that it brings is monitored as the Arctic oscillation. The cooling of 1940-1978 is associated with high pressure at the pole and deficient ozone. The warming between 1978 was due to a flux of ozone as the AO went positive. The cooling after 2007 (a run of La Ninas) is associated with a recovery of Arctic Pressure.
The vortex circulation referred to has a very different morphology in the southern and the northern hemisphere. And what is meant by the word ‘vortex’ is not always clear. Are we referring to the margin of the cold polar air as it forces against the south westerlies at the surface where polar cyclones are formed? The right description of that area is the Polar Front. Or are we referring to the ozone deficient core of the vortex in the stratosphere, with a core area that is very much smaller, as little as a fe hundred square kilometres (a guess). And, given that Siberia is the strongest area for downdraft activity in the northern hemisphere competing directly with the Arctic and Eastern Canada/Greenland and these areas are frequently the locations where the change in geopotential heights first occur, can we speak of vortex activity moving about from place to place.
Get this. It is a key observation: Stratospheric geopotential heights always increase as surface atmospheric pressure below the vortex increases. In terms of the AO index, pressure increases as the AO index falls. Transport through the stratospheric vortex depends directly upon the supply of air. The supply of air can be monitored in terms of the change in surface pressure. Why do heights increase as pressure increases? Heights depend directly upon ozone supply. Ozone absorbs OLR from the Earth and warms the surrounding nitrogen and oxygen. During the immediately preceding period when both geopotential heights and atmospheric pressure was low, the supply of mesospheric air to the stratospheric vortex i diminished with a consequent increase in ozone in the upper stratosphere. As pressure is restored, the vortex recovers and this ozone is transported down from the interaction area of the upper stratosphere/lower mesosphere. So geopotential heights increase. The location of enhanced geopotential heights allows you to trace the flow of ozone into the mixing zones that extend into the entire stratosphere.
It follows that the flux in ozone levels to the middle and lower stratosphere and upper troposphere (where it governs 200hpa temperature and ice cloud density and is related to SST change in mid latitudes) depend upon a dynamical mechanism that governs the supply of NOX to the vortex from the mesosphere. That dynamical mechanism is the thing that changes the distribution of the mass of the atmosphere causing the change in atmospheric pressure.
Ulric knows the agent of change in the mass of the atmosphere. He is always talking about it.
What is required is a direct link between Ulrics solar wind and the change in the distribution of the mass of the atmosphere. Change surface pressure anywhere and you change the winds and with it climate.
Yes, geomagnetic activity is related to an increase in the NOX concentration in the mesosphere but there is always plenty there anyway. What determines the climate effect is the dynamical mechanism that governs the interaction of the mesosphere with the polar stratosphere.
Document the link between the solar wind and the change in surface pressure and the prize is yours.
Ulric Lyons says:
November 27, 2010 at 5:37 pm
…..
Hi Ulric
I’ve been looking at this for only few weeks, what is your longer term perception ?
Do you have any historical data on the coronal holes?
Thanks.
This discussion here has been really fascinating and my thanks to all of you who made a contribution! I also think that it went a bit above my head here and there and perhaps also above the head of a few others that I had invited here.
All I ask to know is what each of your final yes or nay is to my 2 questions,
i.e.
1) can solar activity be correlated to cloud formation? (more clouds mean cooling and less clouds mean warming)
2) can solar activity be correlated, directly or indirectly, to the movement of the major tropic cloudbanks, either more towards the poles (=warming- smaller square area covered) or more to the equator (=cooling – bigger square area of earth covered)?
Henry:
Yes and Yes.
Leif:
A couple of your latest points will be useful in helping me refine things but are not fatal.
Other points I think you are wrong about especially the issue of tropopause heights and the reasons for changes. It is true that warming for SSW events starts in the troposphere and while the energy is below the tropopause then the tropopause rises but once the energy transfers to the stratosphere the tropopause is pushed downward. The latter phase of maturity and dissipation is the longer and more pronounced.
I await news in due course as to whether the mesosphere and stratosphere continue their warming trends whilst the sun remains less active than pre 2000. If they do then the jets will remain equatorward, the polar vortices will stay more negative than they were in the late 20th century, cloudiness will remain higher than it was as will albedo, less energy will enter the oceans, ocean heat content will continue to decline and La Nina will continue to be more dominant than El Nino with a net cooling effect on the system as a whole
All that will only go into reverse at such future time as the sun becomes more active for a long enough period of time.
I agree with you that the mechanisms in the upper atmosphere are unclear but that must be where the answer lies. I simply do not share your negativity about every possible scenario. Whatever the cause is it must operate by altering the vertical temperature profile in the ways that I illustrated elsewhere.
Erl Happ said:
“Yes, geomagnetic activity is related to an increase in the NOX concentration in the mesosphere but there is always plenty there anyway. What determines the climate effect is the dynamical mechanism that governs the interaction of the mesosphere with the polar stratosphere.”
Thanks Erl. A lot to be digested there.
As regards the above portion I think the mechanism is the ebb and flow of ozone quantities which appear to go one way below 45km and the other way above 45km.
The net effect appears to be dominated by the temperature changes above 45km because both mesosphere and stratosphere cooled during the period of active sun and now seem to be warming slightly with a less active sun. That stratospheric cooling occurred despite the expected warming effect of more UV and ozone creation below 45km. Now we have a slight stratospheric warming despite the expected cooling effect of less UV and less ozone creation below 45km.
At present it is fair enough for Leif to express doubts about the significance of the recent findings above 45km but in my opinion so many other climate events then fall into place that I think it is very significant.
Erl Happ said:
“Document the link between the solar wind and the change in surface pressure and the prize is yours.”
Not sure I have the resources to fully document it but in any event I think modern sensing technology is going to make it pretty clear before long.
In the meantime I can offer my best guess which is implicit in my recent work.
Since charged particles are involved in the ozone quantity changes above 45km they are directed in at the poles so their effect is focused there. The speed and / or density of the solar wind controls to some degree the quantities of incoming material.
If the incoming material increases then there is more ozone depletion above 45km for a cooling effect which the affects the stratosphere to more than offset the UV ozone warming in the low and middle stratosphere.
The opposite process applies if the incoming material decreases.
So a more active sun cools the stratosphere, raises the tropopause and deepens the polar vortex (however defined) which contracts towards the poles pulling the jets poleward.
A less active sun warms the stratosphere, lowers the tropopause causing a shallower polar vortex which expands equatorward pushing the jets before it.
That is what we have actually observed since the solar cycles started ramping up with cycle 17 with a slight pause during cycle 20 and a serious change downward for cycle 24.
The solar activity levels started ramping up with cycle 17 but the full effect on tropospheric temperatures was not experienced until the ocean phases came into line around the mid 70s and then fror 25 years we had both positive ocean cycles pushing the jets poleward and an active sun cooling the stratosphere and pulling the jets poleward.
We now have seriously reduced solar activity with jets well equatorward from where they were and a negative ocean phase just beginning.
Notwithstanding all that there is also room for other proposals such as yours and Ulric’s because if verified they would have the power to modulate the effects of the processes that I have been describing.
Stephen Wilde says:
November 28, 2010 at 4:33 am
That is what we have actually observed since the solar cycles started ramping up with cycle 17 with a slight pause during cycle 20 and a serious change downward for cycle 24.
You also need to consider SC19, on which many a hypotheses stumbled.
Here is the current thinking about polar vortex, stratospheric ozone, temperatures and what causes what: angeo-28-2133-2010.pdf
Here is a quote to wet your appetite: ” the variations in the polar vortex and in temperature-dependent polar ozone depletion, which are induced by tropospheric forcing mechanisms, may have a substantial feedback on the tropospheric and stratospheric wave propagation. Note here that Randel and Wu (1999) found an overall similarity in the coherent space-time structure of ozone loss and cooling patterns for the Arctic and Antarctic. These variations are driven by the different buildup of tropospheric wave energy.”
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 28, 2010 at 7:57 am
Here is the current thinking about polar vortex, stratospheric ozone, temperatures and what causes what: http:/www.leif.org/EOS/angeo-28-2133-2010.pdf
It cites the classic Schoebel paper: http:/www.leif.org/EOS/RG016i004p00521.pdf that is still a good overview.
Leif Svalgaard says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
November 28, 2010 at 8:15 am
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 28, 2010 at 7:57 am
Here is the current thinking about polar vortex, stratospheric ozone, temperatures and what causes what: http://www.leif.org/EOS/angeo-28-2133-2010.pdf
It cites the classic Schoebel paper: http://www.leif.org/EOS/RG016i004p00521.pdf that is still a good overview.
vukcevic says:
November 28, 2010 at 1:01 am
Hi Vuk,
That CH list just gives peak values, better to use daily/hourly data:
http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/
Dr. Svalgaard
Has any hypothesis managed (to your knowledge) to reconcile SC19 output with the global temperature fall?
vukcevic says:
November 28, 2010 at 9:06 am
Has any hypothesis managed (to your knowledge) to reconcile SC19 output with the global temperature fall?
The standard explanation is that increased aerosols from polluting industry [and cars] is responsible for the drop in temperatures. What truth there is to that is doubtful, but it is no worse than so many other untenable claims peddled.
To stay on topic [cosmic rays] I can comment on McCracken’s claim that the cosmic ray intensity suffered a large drop about 1950 [based on his dubious splicing of ion chamber counters and neutron monitor counts]. This would according to the cosmic ray hypothesis lead to a warming after 1950 [fewer cosmic rays – less clouds – warming] which may or may not have happened [assuming a 20-30 year lag might improve the correlation]. But, again, people find, defend, reveling in their own brilliance, all sorts of weirds things.
On the face of it, cycle 19 shows the folly of all of this. “reconcile SC19 output” should be replaced by “seeing that it just ain’t what they so badly want”. We have the same problem in prediction of solar cycles, where cycle 19 often is an outlier, so people just declare it to be an ‘outlier’ and continue as if S19 never happened.
Stephen Wilde says:
November 28, 2010 at 4:33 am
“Document the link between the solar wind and the change in surface pressure and the prize is yours.”
Not sure I have the resources to fully document it but in any event I think modern sensing technology is going to make it pretty clear before long.
We have excellent surface pressure and solar wind data for at least the past 40 years and with reasonable accuracy for a century, so ‘before long’ must be slow in coming to improve on that. The data is there already.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 28, 2010 at 7:57 am
So, if I understand correctly, it is variations in solar wind, not TSI, that affects the polar vortex, thereby affecting earth’s climate?
Stephen, see what information you can glean from this:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/824263/Kolstad2010.pdf
David Ball says:
November 28, 2010 at 10:00 am
So, if I understand correctly, it is variations in solar wind, not TSI, that affects the polar vortex, thereby affecting earth’s climate?
I don’t think that was the conclusion of that paper. Rather, it the troposphere that sends waves up into the stratosphere. These waves originate at lower latitudes [even subtropical] where the solar wind hardly precipitate anything. E.g. from their conclusion: “1. Two subtropical wave trains occurred before the warming event, one starting behind the other, and the first over the eastern Indian Ocean and the second over the eastern Pacific Ocean.”
I would agree with Leif on tropospheric forcings. It might be well worth your time Stephen to consider the intrinsic mechanisms of the tropopause, and in particular Rossby waves in the northern hemisphere.
Pamela Gray says:
November 28, 2010 at 10:21 am
I would agree with Leif on tropospheric forcings.
I can hardly take credit for what are the generally accepted [heavily documented with observations and solid theoretical [and modeling] understanding] 🙂
Thank you. Very interesting lines of thought. Is it possible that both are in play?
David Ball says:
November 28, 2010 at 10:52 am
Thank you. Very interesting lines of thought. Is it possible that both are in play?
The real question would be what their relative importance would be. Say that mechanism A is responsible for 99.999% of an effect ad mechanism B is responsible for 0.0005% [while all other unknown mechanisms make for the remaining 0.0005%], one might claim that they ‘both are in play’, but that would be rather silly [but, hey, people do silly things].
There is very little hard evidence [I don’t know of any, but shall allow for some ignorance on my part] that the solar wind controls the polar vortex to any significant degree.