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

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
386 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 25, 2010 8:04 am

P. Solar says:
November 25, 2010 at 6:11 am
What is it “coincident” with. Your other comments on the paper are interesting I think you need to be a lot clearer about what you are saying here.
This has been discussed on another thread. The main point is that main magnetic field of the earth [and in the Arctic] has been decreasing steadily the past two thousand years and the temperatures have not been steadily rising the past two thousand years.
Now, Vuk says that the correlation is negative except at times when it is positive. In my book that means ‘no correlation’.

November 25, 2010 8:10 am

Yarmy says:
November 25, 2010 at 2:10 am
The author has his own website here:
http://benlaken.com/index.html
He’s very young: looks like he’s only just finished his PhD.

Exactly he’s the first author who is usually the most junior, often a grad student, the faculty come later in the list.

Alan the Brit
November 25, 2010 8:13 am

This ia all fascinating stuff, a great post!
Does anybody remember this from last year, poor old Prof Lockwood, possibly?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8008473.stm
With three harsh NH winters just gone, & a harsh SH one from which they are only just emerging, shouldn’t somebody tell him?

November 25, 2010 8:17 am

vukcevic says:
November 25, 2010 at 6:41 am
The heliospheric magnetic field impends GCR entry into heliosphere. The Earth’s magnetic field does the same for the magnetosphere. When the GCR count is calculated it is first adjusted for variation for the strength of the Earth’s dipole
If the GCRs have any effect it would be with the GCRs actually reaching the atmosphere, so they should not be corrected when correlated with temperatures. Here is a graph of the uncorrected GCRs [represented by their proxy 14C] and the Earth’s [or the Arctic’s – it doesn’t make much difference which one] magnetic field strength [dots]. You can clearly see that they are strongly anti-correlated [as they should be according to our understanding of how this works]. The tiny wiggles are solar activity related changes. It should be clear that the variation of the main field is by far the dominant, so if climate follows the GCR flux, it should follow the 14C curve. I don’t think it does. You can get around this problem by claiming that we do not know anything about past climate anyway.

November 25, 2010 8:18 am

Here is a graph of the uncorrected GCRs
Forgot the graph: http://www.leif.org/research/CosmicRays-GeoDipole.jpg

tallbloke
November 25, 2010 8:18 am

Steven Mosher says:
November 25, 2010 at 2:39 am (Edit)
Ryan Maue says:
November 25, 2010 at 1:25 am (Edit)
Upon seeing the usage of NCEP-Reanalysis surface air temperatures, I quit reading.
#####
yup. i guess everybody forgets they are not observations. suddenly when observations that nobody trusts are fed into a Reanalysis model (and they cant be right) the result is suitable to use to test a theory. selective skepticism

I suspect NCEP reanalyses are not as bad as some make out. The reason I suspect this is because I found an interesting correlation between solar activity and the NCEP reanalysis of specific humidity at the tropopause. The odds of it being a chance match are very small.

November 25, 2010 8:23 am

tallbloke says:
November 25, 2010 at 8:18 am
I suspect NCEP reanalyses are not as bad as some make out. The reason I suspect this is because I found an interesting correlation between solar activity and the NCEP reanalysis of specific humidity at the tropopause.
This is expected from Leif’s Law: “if the data matches my pet theory, the data is good” :–)

November 25, 2010 8:38 am

_Jim says:
November 25, 2010 at 7:48 am
As we all know, the Sun’s “solar magnetic field” extends throughout our galaxy whereas the Earth’s does not extend throughout our galaxy
The sun’s magnetic field does not really extend throughout the Galaxy in any meaningful way. It is confined to the Heliosphere by the interstellar medium just as the Earth’s magnetic field is confined to its Magnetosphere by the solar wind [the interplanetary medium]. The fields at times connect, so you might say that the Earth’s field is connected to the Sun’s field which is connected to the Galaxy’s field which is connected to the filed of the Local Group, which is connected to …[etc], but that is like saying that the the Petaluma River extends all the way to China…

oneuniverse
November 25, 2010 8:38 am

Ryan Maue : Upon seeing the usage of NCEP-Reanalysis surface air temperatures, I quit reading.
Discarding the entire paper for this reason seems an over-reaction, as the authors found that the effect was present in both the ISCCP satellite data and NCEP/NCAR reanalysis data.
ps. Thank you for your response, Dr. Laken, much appreciated.

eadler
November 25, 2010 8:43 am

This is a very interesting study. The conclusion seems to be that under certain atmospheric conditions, GCR’s impact cloudiness. There seems to be a strong physical basis for this correlation. It has taken special work to find incidences of this phenomenon, and previous workers have been unable to discover it.
The authors say that this could have contributed significantly to global climate prior to the rise of anthropogenic influences. This is regarded by some posters as obeisance to the dominance of “Warmers”, rather than as a scientific statement.
It is pretty simple to see why this statement was made. While there has been a 11 year cyclic variation of Cosmic Rays with time since 1950, there is no overall increasing trend in Cosmic Rays to match the trend of increasing temperatures. Check out the following graph extracted from the book “The Chilling Stars”
http://www.realclimate.org/images/TheChillingStars.jpg

Gordon Ford
November 25, 2010 8:43 am

A civilized discussion by intelligent people.
This amplifies the value of WUWT.
Thanks to Anthony and all his friends.
Also Happy Turkey Day to all south of the line, the 49th that is.

November 25, 2010 8:55 am

Richard S Courtney
I am very grateful for your constructive comments. They are great inspiration for further thoughts. I am certain that climate is among the most complex problems the science has to disentangle. Most of my incidental and often incoherent comments are aimed at probing into new aspects of the climate change causes, previously neglected, but for time being I do understant that is far removed from what rigour of science requires.
My thanks again.

Jim D
November 25, 2010 8:55 am

My thinking on this.
They have detected a signal in cloud on the time scale of a few days due to changes in GCR that are (key point) only 1-2% of the solar 11-year cycle GCR changes. Now, if this is important for climate scales, it should also cause something significant to happen in the 11-year cycle, particularly since those GCR changes are much larger. But when we look at the 11-year cycle, at a stretch we only see 0.2 C oscillations in global temperature. So, I suspect that while these short-term fluctuations are interesting, they are not saying anything about climate even at the decadal scale.

tonyb
Editor
November 25, 2010 9:02 am

Ben Laken 6.06
What a civilised reply. An object lesson to certain big names in this field as was the clarity of your paper.
I shall watch your future work with great interest.
Tonyb

November 25, 2010 9:04 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
November 25, 2010 at 8:17 am
vukcevic
………………………….
I thought I was, by default, the master of confounding statements, but I take my hat off, sir.

Roy W. Spencer
November 25, 2010 9:11 am

WOW…if their methodology is good, that observational result between ISCCP and cosmic ray flux is pretty amazing.
…waiting to see if Hansen will claim that it’s actually the cloud changes causing the changes in cosmic ray activity…which occur BEFORE the cloud changes.

November 25, 2010 9:13 am

vukcevic says:
November 25, 2010 at 9:04 am
I thought I was, by default, the master of confounding statements, but I take my hat off, sir.
Not confounding, just wrong.

November 25, 2010 9:17 am

LazyTeenager says:
November 25, 2010 at 4:19 am
So every time we find some new thing that affects climate that somehow it proves everything else is excluded; like CO2. Errr no.
Just for you, Lazy, the argument is: Nobody doubts that the atmosphere, including its CO2, keeps us warm. Some of us doubt that variations in CO2 PPM, undeniably rising steadily for many decades, was the main driver of the 1975-1998 uptick. (Had that uptick continued to 2010 we’d have become less sceptical about Carbon Monomania.)
My phrase “all this nonsense about CO2” was shorthand for “the dumb assertation that burning fossil fuels takes us closer to a tipping point beyond which a positive feedback will be triggered, leading to Thermageddon, when in fact the climate is an imperfectly-understood complex adaptive system with a multi-billion year track record of supporting life.”

November 25, 2010 9:18 am

tallbloke
NCEP reanalyses: I guess the point I would make to WUWT readers is this. If you read here for a while ( or write here) you will find several persistent themes among “some” commenters:
1. the observation record is junk,biased,tampered with,not accurate…[choose one]
2. Models have to get things perfectly or they are junk
3. You cannot model the climate.
4. Raw observations are better than adjusted data
5. etc
Now I happen to disagree with all of these statements (especially #5). So, it was
interesting to see people applaud a study that uses Reanalysis data.
if you believe that the observation data is junk or biased you need to understand exactly how Reanalysis works. what are the inputs? If you distrust GCMs or models in general you need to understand the kinds of models that get used to do Reanalysis.
Being selectively skeptical about this things wont cut it.
I have no issue with Reanalysis ( or any other data adjustment, data infilling, data extrapolation, data modelling) “observations”. However, before you test a theory using them you have to realize that you are comparing two models. a theory and a model of data. This entail carrying forward errors and uncertainty in the model of the data.
A point Briggs would make if he were here, he’s not so I’ll make it.

Enneagram
November 25, 2010 9:23 am

vukcevic says:
November 25, 2010 at 9:04 am
He is a respected “Advocatus diaboli”…Friction is needed to make fire, but in order to make Light, electricity is better, and to make magnetism too (in fact both are twins, as Oersted showed it).

timetochooseagain
November 25, 2010 9:25 am

It is sad to me that we all have to qualify, “look, please stop suggesting this has something to do with global warming”…
eadler-“The authors say that this could have contributed significantly to global climate prior to the rise of anthropogenic influences. This is regarded by some posters as obeisance to the dominance of “Warmers”, rather than as a scientific statement.”
It’s not a scientific statement, it’s a stupid statement, I’m sorry to say. The effects did not suddenly stop effecting the climate altogether after some mysterious “time of anthropogenic influences” and they will effect it in the future. This is NOT to assert that the “justification” (a lack of trend) is wrong, just that, saying that they think it can’t have contributed to the recent trend, does NOT mean that it no longer contributes to climate variability and trends, especially in the future. If the sun’s activity changes significantly in the future, this would impact our forecasts for the future, for example, and existing forecasts would probably end up being wrong because they didn’t include this effect.
The fact is that this will have some impact on our understanding of AGW. Of course it doesn’t “negate” it altogether, nothing could conceivably do so. But every change in our understanding of climate has some significance for our understanding of AGW, in some way, even if indirectly. The authors of the study emphasize that this effect can’t, as far as they can tell, directly impact the attribution of recent warming. So? The questions that are interesting about AGW are much more than just the attribution issue in recent decades.

AndyW
November 25, 2010 9:43 am

Great debate, really enjoyed reading it so far.
Anthony, your blog has quality and quantity. Most of the time ! 🙂
Andy

Paul Vaughan
November 25, 2010 9:48 am

vukcevic wrote, “I have no data on the Antarctica’s Beryllium […]”
Maybe have a look here…
Horiuchi, K.; Uchida, T.; Sakamoto, Y.; Ohta, A.; Matsuzaki, H.; Shibata, Y; & Motoyama, H. (2008). Ice core record of 10Be over the past millennium from Dome Fuji, Antarctica: A new proxy record of past solar activity and a powerful tool for stratigraphic dating. Quaternary Geochronology 3(3), 253-261.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/metadata/noaa-icecore-8612.html
data: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/domefuji/domefuji-10be2008.txt

November 25, 2010 9:53 am

This is another step forward…..!

Editor
November 25, 2010 9:56 am

P Gosselin says:
November 25, 2010 at 6:08 am

Speaking at the 3rd International Climate Conference in Berlin, Dec. 3-4, 2010:
Prof. Dr. Henrik Svensmark, Denmark, Atmospheric Sciences
Prof. Dr. Nir Shaviv, Israel, Astrophysicist
Prof. Dr. Jan Veizer, Canada, Paleo-geologist
I’m attending, and I’m now really really looking forward to it!

Well, I won’t be attending, I’ll just be sitting at home feeling very jealous!

1 3 4 5 6 7 16