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
“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….”
As others have commented, this is a fascinating and rather sad quote.
Clearly the author felt the need to state his belief in the orthodoxy, while at the same time his interesting work provides yet another argument that will eventually destroy the orthodoxy
He says plainly that this mechanism has had a significant effect on climate in the past. Proxy data from around the world (see the recent WUWT post about the MWP/LIA global extent) clearly shows that the mild 20th century warming was very similar to previous events. If the earlier events were driven by this mechanism, as he suggests, then it seems somewhat obvious that the 20th century warming may well have had the same cause. The fact that solar activity was extremely high during the 20th century strongly supports this.
I’m sure the author realises this. To suggest that mechanisms that have driven the Earth’s climate for thousands of years suddenly stopped in 1900 is almost beyond ridiculous. But no doubt he felt he had to say this. So very sad.
Still, those few words which he will no doubt come to regret are of little significance in the greater scheme of things. What really matters is that this significant work will help to move climate science, by whatever small amount, back towards honesty and the rule of empirical evidence and logic over pseudo-religious beliefs and rotten computer models.
Chris
I think I’ll wait for the movie to come out.
Read Stephen Wilde in the November 25, 2010 at 2:10 am post. There’s a lot more going on before and after clouds form. And as others have pointed out, this paper could use some replication/verification.
I think I’ve never heard so loud
The quiet message in a cloud.
================
Er… they said the model doesn’t work??!?
These results provide perhaps the most compelling evidence presented thus far of a GCR-climate relationship.
But you are happy to believe them because it fits your theory?
Anyone see a contradiction here?
Yes, I noted that too. You can’t get a paper published without tipping your hat to the AGW crowd.
Richard S Courtney says: November 25, 2010 at 3:06 am
…………..
I have strong reservation regarding the Svensmark effect, that it has sufficient ‘power’ to achive what is implied, but if it does than following could be the result:
In winter months the Arctic insolation is minimal, its thermal input is from the North Atlantic’s current system:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
In the summer months insolation is the main factor, on annual bases the ratio is probably more like 40:60 solar vs currents.
It is a well known fact that clouds act as a ‘blanket’ in cold winter nights, and even in many winter days above 50N cloudy day could be warmer than sunny (heat gets in, but does not radiates back as effectively as when is cloudless).
This is perfectly in line with GCRvs clouds hypothesis, if applicable, it is just what is relevant and where. Albedo is the main factor in tropical and subtropical regions up to 12 months , temperate regions 8-9 months and polar regions only 3-5 summer months.
One point to bear in mind is that long term changes in geomagnetic field are in the region of 1000s nanoTesla, while for sunspot cycles are in order of 10s of nanoTesla.
But again I think magnetic field is not cause or a a consequence of temperature changes, but happen to be a parallel side effect. According to my research it is the North Atlantic precursor, and geomagnetic field happen to be fellow travellers along the same time line.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NAP.htm
Brent Hargreaves says:
November 25, 2010 at 1:53 am
Great news! Once the link between solar activity and climate is well understood we can stop all this nonsense about carbon dioxide.
—————–
Weird logic. Seems to be a rerun of the strangely popular idea that only one thing can affect climate at a time. So every time we find some new thing that affects climate that somehow it proves everything else is excluded; like CO2. Errr no.
When I read the title, I got excited.
Then I read the words “statistically robust” , “reanalysis” , “GCM’s” and my shoulders slumped.
Having read the rest, I think I understand the purpose of this paper. i.e. these are alarmists who are trying to establish what “natural variations” caused warming and/or cooling PRIOR to mans sins.
The layout of the paper is so so familiar. “We have a theory, ROBUST models confirm our theory, but we need more grants to look further into it.”
Anyone wishing to gain some knowledge about GCR’s and galactic influences on our climate may like to visit the website of that brilliant young physicist NIR SHAVIV http://www.sciencebits.com/
Vukcevic,
The negative correlation that you mention may come about because of the difference in albedo between cloud and ice.
Low Earth (Solar?) magnetic field –> more cosmic rays –> more cloud
would normally indicate cooling. However, cloud is less reflective than
the underlying ice, and there is net decrease in albedo near the poles.
Similarly,
High Earth (Solar?) magnetic field –> less cosmic rays –> less cloud
would normally indicate heating. However, over the poles less cloud
means that sunlight reflects of the bare ice, increasing albedo an so
leading to cooling near the poles.
You have to laugh at the “magic phrase” needed to mollify the CAGW gatekeepers that was necessary to get the paper published.
———–
I have to laugh at people whose lips and tongue are green because they have drunken to much cool aid.
I’d like to see more skepticism about conspiracy theories. I see too much gullibilty.
Leif Svalgaard says: November 25, 2010 at 3:25 am
…………………..
As I just said in my comment to Richard S Courtney:
“I think magnetic field is not cause or a consequence of temperature changes, but happen to be a parallel side effect. According to my research the North Atlantic precursor and geomagnetic field happen to be fellow travellers along the same time line.”
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NAP.htm
Correlation is always there, but it need not be always negative:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LL.htm
The reasons for these prolong periods, could be clear to anyone who considers all the factors affecting the North Atlantic’s currents circulation.
Correlation has to be positive or negative only if there is a direct link of cause-consequence, but that may not be case here. However, you may be aware (at least of theoretical possibility) of close circuit systems where positive feedback flips into negative and vice versa, I do not think that is case here, but the science may prove otherwise.
Kniveton has used the superposed epoch method on clouds before, e.g. in a paper with Brian Tinsley: http://www.utdallas.edu/nsm/physics/pdf/tin_dcgcc.pdf
In it they discuss the ‘Wilcox’ effect on storminess from passage of the Heliospheric Current Sheet. Back in 1973 I was co-author of the ‘discovery’ paper on the Wilcox effect: Wilcox, J.M., P.H. Scherrer, L. Svalgaard, W.O. Roberts, and R.H. Olsen, Solar magnetic sector structure: Relation to circulation of the Earth’s atmosphere, Science, 180, 185, 1973. One of the speculations was that the cosmic ray intensity [which is also organized by the polarity of the sun’s magnetic field] was somehow involved. As with so many sun-weather effects, the Wilcox-effect eventually died.
Yarmy says: November 25, 2010 at 2:10 am
quote
The author has his own website here:
http://benlaken.com/index.html
unquote
And he works on the Earthshine Project, one of the most visionary efforts in all of climate science. Respect!
I had trouble interpreting the paper, not least because PDFs are very jerky on this machine. Presumably the GCR change shown in Fig. 3 is a sudden drop with concomitant mid-latitude drops in cloud cover at low and medium altitudes. To me, however, what stands out are the anomalies, equal and opposite cloud _increases_ in a few selected areas. It’s the odd bits that prove the science: looking at the warm spike off North America I’d have guessed it was an indication of (pause for groan from all present) previously reduced aerosol levels caused by oil and surfactant pollution. But looking at the other areas which are warming, I realise I’ll have to think a bit. Why the big blob in the Pacific for instance?
Dr Laken, if you want to see another large influence on aerosols, leave the telescope and amble down to the westerly facing slopes of Tiede, just above Puerto de Santiago and look west as the sun sets. On a still day you can see the pollution from the town’s drains trailing off all the way to the horizon fifty miles away. Think about what that stuff coating the water will do to the production of aerosols. Multiply the population of Santiago up to 5 billion and imagine the result if you multiply that oil smooth by the same amount. Enough oil drains down the world’s sewers to coat the entire ocean surface every fortnight.
But all I’ve got is a hammer, so everything looks like a nail.
JF
I’ve parked my posting for Judith Curry’s future thread on alternative GW theories on her latest Open thread.
Why are cloud changes increasing at the start of the study (day -8 to -10) when the GCR flux is low?
This is “non-Svensmark”, but since someone (incorrectly I guess) suggested that Svensmark’s study rejects long term solar impact, a correlation study by Cornelis de Jager and Silvia Duhau, “The variable solar dynamo and the forecast of Solar Activity: Influence on Terrestrial Surface Temperature” may be relevant.
http://www.cdejager.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/2010-Variable-solar-dynamo3.pdf
They’ve studied correlation between solar cycles and temperature, and predict a solar minimum.
(Abstract of a previous 2009 de Jager/Duhau study:
http://ncwatch.typepad.com/dalton_minimum_returns/2009/02/no-warming-until-after-2014-and-maybe-not-then-.html )
….not forgeting that 90% of GCR are PROTONS (Hydrogen nucleii), able to react with ozone and oxygen.
While it hasn’t come up in the comments so far, Svensmark says the cloud effect would be most pronounced in clean maritime air where the clean air means few condensation nuclei exist (cosmic rays create muons which ionize SO2 derived from DMS released by decay algae, IIRC and may not).
This study suggests an obvious followup. Since this presumes changes in cloud cover at mid latitudes, then people should look for changes in real cloud cover and correlate that with latitude and ocean/land surface (including distance from land upwind).
vukcevic says:
November 25, 2010 at 1:04 am
What if Svenmark´s effect is a side effect while magnetism is a cause?
Did you check it with the beryllium proxy?
We should not necesarilly expect heat caused by IR (LWR): When I prepare my breakfast, I expect heat from Microwave :-), others, directly from plasma….. or is it somebody out there prohibiting some parts of the spectrum to change wavelengths/frequencies?
Stephen Wilde says:
November 25, 2010 at 2:10 am
I’d like to resolve the question as to whether the change in cosmic ray intensity is a direct driver itself or a mere proxy for solar changes that cause the cloud changes by other means.
The thing is that the cloud quantity changes also seem to be accompanied by latitudinal jet stream shifting….
_________________________________________________________
Stephen,
Have you taken into account the fact that changes in cloud cover will change the amount of energy hitting the earth instead of being reflected? Especially when 70% of the earth’s surface is water?
This last year or two seems to indicate there has been some sort of change in the jet stream behavior. We also have the change from warm to cool in the PDO.
At this point I do no think anyone can tell what the confounding effects are from the cosmic ray/cloud cover changes.
Radio flux f10.7 from Solar cycle 24 is tracking well below the level of cycle 20, which was during the cold 1970s.
Based on the relationships observed in this study […] we speculate
that little systematic change in temperature [due to cloud cover changes, see text] at mid-latitudes has occurred over the last 50 years. However, at shorter time-scales this phenomenon may contribute to natural variability, potentially reducing detectability of an anthropogenic signal.”
which is in line with
“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”
…
In my sense, it is another proof that the solar influence is way weaker than the rest in the context of the recently observed warming.
And that’s exactly the sense they wanted to leave you with, despite their own admission that they don’t have any proof of that, and it’s just their “speculation.” Basically this paper is an appology for the recent observed levelling/decrease of temperature (“Oh, temporary cloud issue” while trying to ignore the issue on larger time scales.
Here’s the question that they totally glossed over… if the effect is signifigant enough to be “detectable in palaeoclimatic records” (read as: HUGE time scales), then how is it possible that the effect has had no long-term influence within the last 50 years, but only short-term recently? Hmm?
Their logic doesn’t follow at all, which isn’t surprising since it’s not really logic. It’s an excuse.
There is more to cloud cover than fraction of the coverage. Droplet size also matters.
Was it Lindzen that proposed something a few years ago about albedo brightening of the clouds being a regulator?
Richard S Courtney says:
November 25, 2010 at 3:06 am
vukcevic:
Thank you for your observation in your post above at November 25, 2010 at 1:04 am.
It says;
“There is a strong correlation between the Arctic temperature and the Earth magnetic field. However the correlation is negative, weaker field higher temperature. If the Svensmark’s effect is at work it is in reverse; weaker magnetic field, more GCR, more clouds above the Arctic, higher temperature…..
____________________________________
SWAG:
IF Vukcevic is correct for the poles and Laken et al. are correct for the mid latitudes, perhaps this might effect the jet stream as Stephen Wilde pointed out???
Mods, pls del prev post (mea culpa on formatting).
Are you possibly confusing or not differentiating between Earth’s magnetic field and the solar magnetic field?
The two would seem to be operative in different areas of ‘space’ …
.
OT, except on the thankfulness part:
Mr. Watts, you are something I am thankful for.
I appreciate your work, the forum you provide for your many intelligent commenters, and the work of those titans who, like you, stand for the hard discipline that science used to be, and may become again through the efforts of those with whom you stand.
Many happy returns of the day to all, and no matter what else is happening in our various corners of the planet, if we have the power and connection to run a computer, not to mention a wonderful place like this to visit, it is indicative that we all truly have much to be thankful for!