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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
vukcevic says:
November 29, 2010 at 11:11 am
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.
Except there was nothing unusual [unexpected, contrary to theory] here, rather a nice confirmation.
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.
They also did not mention a zillion other things that are not relevant.
it appears they were not aware of the volcanic eruptions.
You can assume that they were aware of all the factors that could be of relevance.
The usual [British] meaning of dudgy is ‘evasive’, i.e. a willful act to evade something. So, to be ‘dodgy’, the authors would have had to have known that volcanoes were important, but they willfully omitted that to deceive or mislead.
Dr. S. you are wrong on all three points.
My car’s starter motor is a bit dodgy. Should I call police or a car mechanic?
I got more important things to do, than carry on this time wasting exchange, you obviously have not.
vukcevic says:
November 29, 2010 at 12:02 pm
I got more important things to do, than carry on this time wasting exchange, you obviously have not.
Now you are dodgy.
Dr. S. Thanks again. You solved my ‘Arctic Conundrum’
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
You could do with an update on the stratosphere.
@vukcevic says:
November 29, 2010 at 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…”
I`m more interested in surface temperature/pressure differentials starting them off, and then the resultant incursions of Arctic air into the mid latitudes.
The stratospheric temperature rise is fast and large:-
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/10mb9065.gif
surface:-
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
vukcevic says:
November 29, 2010 at 1:12 pm
You could do with an update on the stratosphere.
I’m all ears. Provide one.
Hi Ulric.
Thanks for the link. What do you think is the cause of the two sudden sharp January’s peaks?
vukcevic says:
November 30, 2010 at 1:04 am
.. What do you think is the cause of the two sudden sharp January’s peaks?
~
According to one of the links Dr. S. provided on the subject, the timing for the events is mostly Jan., Feb., and some March. http://www.leif.org/EOS/RG016i004p00521.pdf
Table 1 pg. 5
That time of year of Earth’s orbit puts Earth in the suns gravitational focusing cone, downwind and on the backside of the Heliosphere’s bubble.
The article suggests as a first cause some sudden down draft wave of sorts, and multiplying of Rossby waves. Perhaps it has something to do with Earth pulling out of the suns gravitational focusing cone.
Animation of Earth’s orbit thru the focusing cone.
http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/isg_pileup.swf
Some earlier observations from SOHO indicate a variable gravitational focusing cone..due to solar activity..
The Helium Focusing Cone of the Local Interstellar Medium Close to the Sun
Michels et al.
Received 2001 August 3; accepted 2001 November 19
ABSTRACT
The Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) Ultraviolet Coronagraph Spectrometer is used to observe the interplanetary He focusing cone within 1 AU. Taken over 2 yr and from differing orbit positions, the series of observations includes measurements of He I 584 Å and Ly intensities. The cone itself is spatially well defined, and the He I intensity within the cone was 45 R in 1996 December, compared with 1 R for lines of sight outward from 1 AU. Between 1996 December and 1998 June, the focusing cone dimmed by a factor of 3.3 as the level of solar activity rose. This is the first time that interstellar helium is observed so near the Sun. .
http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/568/1/385/54578.text.html
Sudden strat warmings occur whilst were located in the gravitational focusing cone of the Sun and the size and density of the cone, is dependent on solar output. Hmmm….. a factor to be considered.
Leif says:
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.
Exactly.
I cannot for the life of me understand why people are still talking about waves coming up from the troposphere warming the stratosphere.
Consider this diagram: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/hgt.aao.shtml
The periodic increase in geopotential heights relate to the flux in ozone from above. Ozone is an absorber of radiation from the Earth. Ozone is created above 10hPa and drifts downwards, eventually succumbing to water, in which it is soluble. There is enough even as low as 200 hPa to cause local warming. That warming is due to absorption of long wave radiation from the Earth, nothing to do with absorption of radiation from the sun because it’s all used up above 30hPa. And this increase in geopotential heights occurs every time the AAO moves in a negative direction from whatever level it happens to be at. The increase in heights starts at the top and moves down.
The poles are special. In the winter there is a ‘night jet’ of descending air in the Arctic. It is present all year in the Antarctic.
A drop in the AAO and the AO signifies rising sea level pressure at the poles. This invigorates the stratospheric vortex. It draws down air from the upper stratosphere/lower mesosphere. Its like turning the tap on again after you have turned it off.
But what sort of air will come down? When you open your garden hose in summer the water is first warm then it cools. When the stratospheric hose is opened up down comes ozone. Why?
The stratospheric vortex connects the troposphere with the mesosphere. At its core there is absolutely no ozone. The core has high levels of nitrogen ions from the mesosphere that are hungry for oxygen ions.
When sea level pressure falls at the pole the vortex stalls, the supply of nitrogen from the mesosphere is cut off. Ozone mixing ratios in the upper stratosphere rapidly increase.
When sea level pressure rises what is the nature of the air that descends from the upper stratosphere via the stratospheric vortex?
It’s a very simple dynamic that should be familiar to anyone who has ever sat in a bathtub watching water disappear down the plug hole.
And it is very well documented. But some people just don’t want to know about it. Why?
Pictures: http://www.jhu.edu/~dwaugh1/gallery_stratosphere.html
Erl Happ and Carla thanks.
That was helpful and interesting from two different points of view.