Something to be thankful for! At last: Cosmic rays linked to rapid mid-latitude cloud changes

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.

Simplified diagram of the Solar-GCR to Earth clouds relationship. Image: Jo Nova

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.

Fig. 1. (A) Short term GCR change (significance indicated by markers) and (B) anomalous cloud cover changes (significance indicated by solid contours) occurring over the composite period. GCR data sourced from multiple neutron monitors, variations normalised against changes experienced over a Schwabe cycle. Cloud changes are a tropospheric (30–1000 mb) average from the ISCCP D1 IR cloud values.

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

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
386 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 28, 2010 11:15 am

Dr. Svalgaard I am sceptical about conclusions of your reference paper:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/angeo-28-2133-2010.pdf
It states:
“Six sudden stratospheric warming events, including the major warming event with a splitting of the polar vortex in mid-January 2003, have been identified. ”
Then there is map on the page 3/16, showing this event over Bering Strait and nearby Kamchatka peninsula.
At the time there was very active Sheveluch volcano
“The number of these explosions observed and detected seismically varied from as many as 25 per week in early January 2003 to several per week in June. By the end of June, the number of explosions had diminished and seismicity remained at or just above background levels through the end of the year.”
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1310/of2005-1310.pdf page 32
There is strong possibility that these events are linked, and this should be taken into account.

November 28, 2010 11:23 am

vukcevic says:
November 28, 2010 at 11:15 am
There is strong possibility that these events are linked, and this should be taken into account.
What is the difference between a ‘strong’ possibility and an ordinary possibility? And why would there even be a possibility? Other than coincidence in time or wishful, sloppy thinking. The mechanisms discussed in the paper have been documented over many decades.

David Ball
November 28, 2010 11:28 am

Dr. Svalgaard, thank you for your candid reply. I suspect that when (if ever) we can say with certainty how this all works, we will say, “oh yeah, that makes sense”.

November 28, 2010 11:40 am

David Ball says:
November 28, 2010 at 11:28 am
Dr. Svalgaard, thank you for your candid reply. I suspect that when (if ever) we can say with certainty how this all works, we will say, “oh yeah, that makes sense”.
I think that what we know now already makes sense, as it even did 32 years ago: http://www.leif.org/EOS/RG016i004p00521.pdf

November 28, 2010 12:00 pm

I was making list of volcanic eruptions in the last 10 years that may affect the Arctic climate (Iceland, Kamchatka and Aleuts), and these show clearly in the temperatures data files.
Six sudden stratospheric warming events above Kamchatka in mid-January 2003
25 explosions per week in January 2003 from Sheveluch volcano in northern Kamchatka.
Not related; I call it dodgy science.
Documented by whom ? Dr. Hathaway.

November 28, 2010 1:07 pm

vukcevic says:
November 28, 2010 at 12:00 pm
Not related; I call it dodgy science.
Documented by whom ? Dr. Hathaway.

StratWarms are caused by planetary waves propagating from the troposphere from lower latitudes. How about actually reading some of the papers I referred you to.

Stephen Wilde
November 28, 2010 1:53 pm

The apparent reverse sign ozone effect above 45km if verified puts everything back in play. Any past theorising that does not account for it will need to be reviewed.

November 28, 2010 2:19 pm

I don’t doubt that, but the paper you selected to prove your case is DODGY!
http://www.leif.org/EOS/angeo-28-2133-2010.pdf
Six sudden stratospheric warming events above Kamchatka in mid-January 2003
25 explosions per week in January 2003 from Sheveluch volcano in northern Kamchatka.
Not related; I call it dodgy science.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/ds.htm

November 28, 2010 2:45 pm

@Erl Happ says:
November 27, 2010 at 9:38 pm
“Change surface pressure anywhere and you change the winds and with it climate.”
I am more focused on the immediate surface temperature as a global signal. Such as during the super high solar wind speeds of the summer of 2003
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/temp/archive.jsp?colour=colour&map=maxanom&period=month&area=nat&year=2003&month=9&day=30

November 28, 2010 3:15 pm

vukcevic says:
November 28, 2010 at 2:19 pm
I don’t doubt that, but the paper you selected to prove your case is DODGY!
That paper was not intended to prove the case. This is textbook science and has been for thirty years. Ir was just a recent example. And there is no evidence that the events are related. My car had a flat tire that winter. Was that related too? Do the authors DODGE that event too?

November 28, 2010 3:24 pm

@vukcevic says:
November 28, 2010 at 12:00 pm
Ah SSW`s, temperature and QBO dependent.
http://www.geo.fu-berlin.de/en/met/ag/strat/produkte/northpole/index.html

November 29, 2010 12:45 am

Thanks Ulric

November 29, 2010 1:14 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
November 28, 2010 at 3:15 pm
…………….
I am not convinced by your silly flat tyre example.
Some Arctic winters are much colder then others . Observational data indicate that significant ozone loss in the Arctic occurs only in cold winters. Volcanoes can substantially increase this loss by enhancing the area over which ozone molecules can get destroyed in the stratosphere. Currently there is lot of volcanic activity in Kamchatka: Kljuchevskaya sopka and Sheveluch.
What are other effects ?
Very relevant, this might be a clue.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/ds.htm

November 29, 2010 3:34 am

vukcevic says:
November 29, 2010 at 1:14 am
Currently there is lot of volcanic activity in Kamchatka: Kljuchevskaya sopka and Sheveluch.
So, that would predict a strong stratospheric warming this winter. We shall see.

November 29, 2010 4:51 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
November 29, 2010 at 3:34 am
…..
Absolutely no idea, probably worth keeping an eye on. Don’t now much, if anything about stratospheric warming, I am not challenging your statement with the knowledge of these events, except that there is a chance that could be a link.
In the Arctic region I found that 10 different volcanoes erupted during 2008/2009 (obviously number of individual eruptions could be much greater), 5 in Kamchatka and 5 in the Aleutian archipelago.
Tallbloke just provided this link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIXfYTSmBg0
You are scientist, if you decide to ignore my comments, that is fine, my contribution on this ends here, but I am as always eager to read what you have to say.

November 29, 2010 5:15 am

vukcevic says:
November 29, 2010 at 4:51 am
Don’t know much, if anything about stratospheric warming
But seemingly enough to call that careful study DODGY…

November 29, 2010 5:30 am

And it is, if authors have not bothered to consider all significant events in the area at the relevant dates. According to the reference I provided, the volcanic explosions are well documented, plumes went to altitude above 6km.
If an amateur (like myself) or an undergraduate fails to do so, it is forgivable, but for a scientist from the Leibniz Institute for Atmospheric Physics, it is not.
Don’t blame the messenger, stop nit-picking, use your expertise and find what was going on, if anything, that is.

November 29, 2010 6:37 am

“The Devil is in the details”….So, the Devil causes nearsightedness. 🙂

November 29, 2010 8:15 am

Erl Happ says:
Document the link between the solar wind and the change in surface pressure and the prize is yours.
Solar link is still there though.
Compare the faint cyan dotted contours in shape of figure of 8 :
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/ds.htm
and the magnetic field of the Arctic area (top graph, polar map)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
then you got work of this little mischievous little imp demonstrated and documented.

November 29, 2010 9:09 am

vukcevic says:
November 29, 2010 at 5:30 am
And it is, if authors have not bothered to consider all significant events in the area at the relevant dates.
“Not bothered”, “dodgy”. Have you considered that the authors have not included the events because these were not viewed as significant for the case at hand? What you are accusing them of is not warranted. Now, there is an accepted mechanism to deal with this: submit a Comment to the journal.

November 29, 2010 9:18 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
November 29, 2010 at 3:34 am
vukcevic says:
November 29, 2010 at 1:14 am
Currently there is lot of volcanic activity in Kamchatka: Kljuchevskaya sopka and Sheveluch.
So, that would predict a strong stratospheric warming this winter. We shall see.
__________________________________________
Kamchatka Peninsula VEI 4+ eruptions: 1956 Mar 30, 1964 Nov 12, 1990 Jan 30, and SSW`s :-
http://www.geo.fu-berlin.de/en/met/ag/strat/produkte/northpole/index.html
No correlation.

November 29, 2010 9:21 am

Ulric Lyons says:
November 29, 2010 at 9:18 am
No correlation.
As expected.

November 29, 2010 10:16 am

@Leif Svalgaard says:
November 29, 2010 at 9:21 am
“As expected.”
As eruptions are on temperature uplifts, I would expect anti-correlation.

November 29, 2010 10:24 am

I am not certain how either ‘stratospheric warming’ or the ‘ozone depletion’ may affect the Arctic temperature. I have looked in all major volcanic eruptions in Iceland, Kamchatka and the Aleutian archipelago, and there is no significant correlation to the Arctic temperature beyond a year or so in very few cases. Considering that these areas are outside polar circle, I would expect any high altitude aerosols to be taken by jet-stream to lower latitudes, and correspondingly I found there is a much stronger ‘negative’ correlation with CETs particularly from Iceland, and not so much from the other two areas. There shows in the 10Be records, they correlate far stronger with CETs rather than with the Greenland or Arctic temperatures.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET&10Be.htm

November 29, 2010 11:11 am

Ulric
I just looked into your link, if you had in mind the stratospheric temperatures, I have no idea why they would go up or down, volcano or no volcano, but events that the relevant paper refers to, lasted only few days, so either these events if related to the volcano, are of very limited duration, or they depend on type of material ejected during eruptions. I am far more interested in the shape of the other set of contours (figure of 8), which I assume is interaction between ‘true’ solar wind and gmf.
Dr. Svalgaard
You are scientist, I am engineer, if I do a test and it shows something unusual, and I do not know cause of it, then I use process of elimination of all possible factors.
I do as I whish, but if you, or on behalf of the authors, feel offended by my remarks, well it was not personal, but refers to part of their conclusion.
If the authors mentioned these volcanic eruptions, and said they do not consider them relevant for x,y&z, then I would not have a case.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/ds.htm
Hence, their conclusion is dodgy (iffy, dubious, risky), but not illegal, criminal or crooked, since it appears they were not aware of the volcanic eruptions. If they were I assume they (or reviewers) would have mentioned the fact, and if it was irrelevant said so. This way there is a big ? regarding this part of their study.