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
In reply to Magnus A:
November 25, 2010 at 10:51 am
The effect they are measuring is caused by high-frequency GCR changes that are 1-2% (their GU units) of the solar cycle amplitude. That is where my number came from. I am sure it contributes something along with water vapor to the positive feedback to the solar cycle because irradiance changes alone can only account for 0.05 C. But the point was that the solar cycle amplitude that has 100 GU units by definition causes 0.2 C at most, so this process seems self-limiting in some way when you get to longer time scales.
vukcevic says:
November 25, 2010 at 11:27 am
Vuk: I guess everything will fit and correlate if the Moon is included. As
Piers Corbyn says:
November 25, 2010 at 10:00 am
… but that these are modulated by lunar effects to give the observed 60 year cycle
http://climaterealists.com/attachments/database/World%20cooling%20has%20set-in%20warns%20astrophysicist.pdf
Relative to their eccentricity, the Moon has a negative EM field: -3.78 Nm at 0.03 eccentricity and -6.17 Nm at 0.08 eccentricity.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/43332150/Unified-Field-Explained-9
@Duckster
“Duckster says:
November 25, 2010 at 4:15 am
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?”
At least there is real observations that seems to support that there is some kind of link. With global warming there is not one shred of data that supports it besides their fancy computer models.
Sloan says: November 25, 2010 at 11:39 am
Earth’s magnetic field is fading.
Earth’s magnetic field (GMF) is all the time in state of a ‘flux’ . In part of South America field has lost nearly 50% of its strength (400 year period) , but in the Central Siberia it is gaining strength. Here you can get an idea of what is going on around the globe.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC23.htm
steven mosher says:
“November 25, 2010 at 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.”
The IPCC directly contradict your 3 (Chapter 14, 14.2.2.2, Working Group 1, The Scientific Basis) Third Assessment Report: “In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled nonlinear chaotic system, and therefore that long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
Why do you think you are right and they are wrong in this instance?
Tonyb
The changes to the climate over millions of years as shown in our geological record are proof that only three things can give us catastrophic climate change. Collision with a hard object, our position in the galaxy and the main warmth giver old Sol.
The striking regularity of the ice ages over our recent past proves that our late history is controlled by the last two, any suggestion that CO2 or indeed any other minor forcing can cause anything measurable is laughable.
History will look back on this period of science as a dark age, the rennaisance has started and not just in the field of climate. The heat of change is in the air for many fields.
RR Kampen says:
November 25, 2010 at 12:29 am
“Hm, it’s just a model. We don’t trust models”.
And why is that?
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/11/25/what-causes-changes-in-oceanic-heat-content/
This is about cloud cover.
IMO the final nail in the coffin of the CO2 driven AGW scam.
Tommy:
“At least there is real observations that seems to support that there is some kind of link. With global warming there is not one shred of data that supports it besides their fancy computer models.”
lets start with the “data”
first the cloud “data”
http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/newalg.html
Do you see that box titled “clear sky radiance model”? do you know what that is?
That is a model that lies at the HEART of AGW theory. Its a radiative transfer model. That model assumes that C02 blocks radiation. The effect that warms the planet
“Once each pixel is classified as clear or cloudy, the measured radiances can be compared to radiative transfer model calculations that include the effects of the atmosphere, surface and clouds. The attributes of the atmosphere, surface and clouds are represented in the model by a large number of physical properties; but the availability of correlative datasets and restriction of the satellite radiances to two wavelengths limit the number of parameters that can be determined from the observations. The analysis strategy used exploits the correlative data to isolate the cloud effects and attributes all remaining radiance variation to changes in two cloud properties; other parameters are assigned climatological average values.”
I suggest everyone who thinks these cloud osbervations are real observations should have a look at the flow diagram for the ANALYSIS and MODELLING done on the raw sensor data. That data is adjusted and manipulated by algorithms and assumptions. full stop. Nothing wrong with that, but if you have every complained about adjustements to raw data, you need to be consisten. Further, if you ever questioned the fact that C02 has an effect on IR you need to recognize that this data is massaged by the very core of AGW science. You accept this data, you accpet that part of AGW theory.
Now lelts go on to NCAR/NCEP reanalysis “observations”
They are not observations. Simply, various datasets of various quality are
used inconjunction with a weather model, a junior GCM, to model observations:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0477%281996%29077%3C0437%3ATNYRP%3E2.0.CO%3B2
have a look at the PDF.
NCEP has 4 classes of variables.
To illustrate a class C variable is created entirely by the model with no input from observation: a class B variable like surface temp has some observational input but is strongly determined by the model, Ben used SLAT which I belive is a class B output.
Class A is strongly influenced by actual measures, but here too the model adjusts the data.
bottomline: you like the data? its not observation. its observations that have been “adjusted” by models.
Robuk says:
November 25, 2010 at 10:00 am
eadler says:
November 25, 2010 at 8:43 am
There is no overall increasing trend in Cosmic Rays to match the trend of increasing temperatures.
http://www.realclimate.org/images/TheChillingStars.jpg
Probably the blue line on the graph is due to the UHI effect.
Can’t find this graph in my copy of Chilling Stars
Cosmic ray is a fancy word for “charged particles in motion”, otherwise known as “eelectricity”.
Increased electrical current density (more amps) increases a magnetic field’s strength, and less reduces it, everything else being equal.
Hence if the magnetic field becomes stronger, more amps are coming into the system, and as we know from our own home electric heaters, things get warmer.
Conversely if the magnetic field becomes weaker, less amps are coming into the system, and as we know, again, from our own home electrical heaters. things get cooler.
But if we continue to call electricity cosmic rays, then we remain in comic book science land. The solar magnetic field isn’t powered by something internal to the sun, but an external source – A nuclear furnaced sun just cannot produce the effects we routinely observe from it. But assume an external source and things become a tad easier to explain.
Tonyb
“The IPCC directly contradict your 3 (Chapter 14, 14.2.2.2, Working Group 1, The Scientific Basis) Third Assessment Report: “In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled nonlinear chaotic system, and therefore that long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
Why do you think you are right and they are wrong in this instance?
Huh: I would agree with them that long term prediction is “not possible”
well actually it is possible, its just not likely to be very correct.
here’s a long term prediction. the long term outlook is absolute zero.
When I say that you can model the climate I mean exactly that. You can model it. The forecasts and predictions that come out of those models are not perfect, will never be perfect. “long” term of course we end up with no sun and no heat. Over the next 100 years (absent massive volcanos, comets hitting us etc) we have a much smaller range of forecast. So, depending how you want to interpret what the IPCC means by “not possible” and by long term, there is agreement between my position and theirs. or disagreement if you take “not possible” to me logically impossible.
step up your game
Viv Evans
I do not suggest that NCEP reanalysis is “bad”
First and foremost I am calling people to account. People who complain about the surface record should know that these observations are fed into the Reanalysis model.
People fond of saying GIGO should acknowledge their inconsistency
Second, people criticize models. reanalysis is the output of a model. a model of the weather. Third the numbers are not “bad” they have uncertainty. If they are class B or class C outputs the uncertinty is greater. That uncertainty needs to be carried forward in any analysis. So, I have no issuing using the data (Ryan may have in his domain ) but thyey are not observations. they are derived from observations.
This whole subject has become overcomplicated.
The sun became less active from the late 90s. The jets started moving towards the equator (or at least started looping about a lot more between equator and poles).
Earthshine project shows that at the same time total cloudiness began to increase and global albedo also increased.
So less energy got into the oceans and La Nina has started to dominate over El Nino.
Cooler ocean surfaces have started to cool the air above but our attention has been distracted for the past year by a short temperature blip in the troposphere as a result of the fact that an El Nino occurred near the top of a 30 year long (possibly 500 year long since the LIA) solar induced warming cycle.
That’s over. It’s gone. From now on it’s downward for 30 years and maybe longer unless we suddenly get another highly active solar cycle.
The evidence is accumulating that the horizontal extent of the polar vortices at the tropopause and the latitudinal position of the jets and thus total cloudiness and albedo are all far more sensitive to solar variability than we ever thought possible.
I nominate the downward NOx flux from various solar energy reactions above 100km which depletes (or allows to recover) ozone quantities above 45km (as per J. Haigh) and thereby more than offsets the effect of more (or less) UV which alters ozone quantities and therefore warms (or cools) the stratosphere below 45km.
That gives us the observed cooling of the stratosphere and mesosphere during the time of active sun and the recent slight warming at a time of quiet sun without requiring any input from human CO2 or CFCs.
That is my considered diagnosis on the basis of evidence currently available.
Let’s see who is right when we have another 5 years observations (possibly less) in the bag.
Pat Frank says:
November 25, 2010 at 10:39 am
Ben Laken, “If we discarded any dataset with issues there would be nothing left to use! As scientist, we can only work with best guess and attempt to minimise uncertainty.”
If this is really true, then a “statistical robust relationship” between the model and NCEP reanalysis data only means significance with respect to the mean of an estimated trend.
That in turn means the uncertainty of the relationship must be convolved with the uncertainty in the trend to get the true total uncertainty in the result.
How certain does the relationship look when one does that?
Looking at Figure 4 of the paper, I note that the 95% confidence interval bands vary with the value of the data, becoming zero when the data pass through zero. This shows that the 95% confidence interval was calculated as a percent relative to some reference, which was then scaled by the relative magnitude of each data point.
################
thanks pat, I was just going to look into those details, but got busy trying to explain the “data” sources to folks
Mosh at 2.04
Are you training to be a politician or something? That was an incredibly obscure answer.
“So, depending how you want to interpret what the IPCC means by “not possible” and by long term, there is agreement between my position and theirs. or disagreement if you take “not possible” to me logically impossible.”
Not possible means just that no matter that you seem to want to stand on your head and play with words. Instead of telling me to step up my game how about if we both play the same one in the real world not some virtual reality one?
tonyb
I wonder if, absent last year’s November surprise, a study like this could even have been published? Here’s a big thank you to whoever leaked the climate-gate files. You may have saved science.
@ur momisugly
P Gosselin says:
November 25, 2010 at 6:08 am
Speaking at the 3rd International Climate Cobnference 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!
———————–
Don’t spend too much money in advance. They’ll all probably be dis-invited.
Riskaverse says:
November 25, 2010 at 1:57 pm
Yes, but is the trend in temperature real? When I see the kind of tricks Hansen is playing with the data, I wonder. I don’t think he should have to play those kinds of tricks if there was a significant trend.
@wayne
‘How about “closed”, not “colsed”. Seems the last moment changes always get you.’
Seems your manic obsessive compulsion gets you though, what with you missed it in your original post but still just had to post it before you even stopped to consider that maybe the person suffers from dyslexia, or poor batteries in his wireless keyboard, or what ever, right, but you on the other hand did have the time so why didn’t you take it?
Brent Hargreaves says:
November 25, 2010 at 9:17 am
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.”
—————–
Excellent. Contender for “Quote of the Week” maybe ??
If you don’t mind, I’m going to be forwarding that quote to people on a regular basis.
Seems a no-brainer that if “The climatic forcings resulting from such solar – terrestrial links may have had a significant impact on climate prior to the onset of anthropogenic warming”, that this still remains a significant factor now and in the future; and given “anthropogenic warming” is the conclusion of an analysis that factored out exactly this significant factor (and others), the odds do not bode well for AGW.
Mike G,
“Don’t spend too much money in advance. They’ll all probably be dis-invited.”
Why would they be dis-invited? It is a conference ONLY for skeptics…..
Louis Hissink says:
November 25, 2010 at 1:58 pm
Cosmic ray is a fancy word for “charged particles in motion”, otherwise known as “electricity. […] A nuclear furnaced sun just cannot produce the effects we routinely observe from it. But assume an external source and things become a tad easier to explain.
Total nonsense.
Regarding the NCEP Reanalysis data,
I have more faith in a weather model which uses real observations to say this is what we thinking WAS happening in the atmosphere at the time given the observations: …
… Versus the results of a CO2-based climate model which uses theory to predict what they think WILL happen. (with no subsequent reanalysis to find out why the CO2-based models consistently can’t predict anything).
Effectively, we know that the NCEP Reanalysis humidity and temperature data is close to reasonably correct because we had people doing actual observations all over the world in 1980 and we know the climate was not doing anything out of the ordinary at the time. It rained in some places, it was sunny in some places, the humidity in Phoenix was 30% in the morning and 15% in the afternoon, it was warm in Africa, it was cold in the Arctic and there was glaciers in Antarctica.
Arun says:
November 25, 2010 at 2:01 am
>>“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”
Such a totally unsupported and self-castrating statement was necessary to include in order to get published in the sick, corrupt field of climate science. LOL.<<
================================
Exactly what I was thinking. Bang on target. One has to refer to AGW to get published.
Jesper Kirkby uses the same 'trick' IMHO, so that he could get through hungrey lions guarding the holy temple. See the following: http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073
It's a lecture on the same lines and the CLOUD experiment that CERN had in their plans for the end of this current year.
IMHO, for CERN to express itself on the matter of AGW, and proposing a link between solar activity/intergalactic radiation and climate variations. they must be pretty damn sure of what they are talking about. They cannot afford to be wrong.
A Wikipedia page ends: He (jasper Kirkby) describes cloud nucleation mechanisms which appear energetically favorable and depend on GCRs.