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
Mosh 9.44
I think you see yourself as Camus sitting at a the Cafe de Flore wearing a beret, sipping an anise whilst earnestly discussing Philosophy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Camus
“Camus’s first significant contribution to philosophy was his idea of the absurd. He saw it as the result of our desire for clarity and meaning within a world and condition that offers neither, which he expressed in The Myth of Sisyphus and incorporated into many of his other works, such as The Stranger and The Plague. Despite his split from his “study partner”, Sartre, some still argue that Camus falls into the existentialist camp.”
Clearly you are also a fan of Alice in Wonderland where down is up and up is down. Kevin Trenberth has great need of your skills. 🙂
All the best
Tonyb
anna v says:
November 25, 2010 at 11:59 pm
I was not going down to 0 but to an imaginary x line through the lowest values.
But you must if “the observation from this paper establishes that condensation is proportional to the impinging radiation.”
tonyb
unfortunately I prefer Quine to Camus.
But you tell me what does the IPCC quote mean to you.
do you think its impossible to predict the climate. this maybe instructive.
who knows we might agree
I’m trying to understand what they did. The paper states “Thus, the units of GCR changes used here are given as “GU”, defined as a change of 1% of the 11-year solar cycle amplitude in four days.”. At Thule the GCR solar cycle amplitude in neutron monitor counts per hour is ~600 out of a total of ~4300. The change happens over 5 years = 5*365 = 1825 days. In four days the GCRs change thus 600/1825*4 = 1.3 counts. 1% of that is 0.013 count. This sounds silly on its face as there is a regular daily variation of 10 counts or 770 times as large. So, I need some clarification on this.
Dr. S, the phrase 1% of the 11 year cycle amplitude in 4 days seems ambiguous to me.
too much turkey..
Steven Mosher says:
November 26, 2010 at 12:51 am
Dr. S, the phrase 1% of the 11 year cycle amplitude in 4 days seems ambiguous to me.
Mosh, my problem is that the phrase is too precise 🙂
I am hoping that Ben Laken would explain.
timetochooseagain says:
November 25, 2010 at 9:56 pm (Edit)
Logical consistency is indeed very important. For my part I am neither one of those who criticized radiosondes during the discussion of Santer’s paper, nor someone who uncritically believes or disbelieves in any particular dataset, without good reasons. NCEP is one I am agnostic on. But I could easily be persuaded one way or the other by arguments.
That’s fine, but if you accept it, then it drives conclusions you may want to draw about surface observations.
http://dss.ucar.edu/datasets/common/ecmwf/ERA40/docs/jgr2004_24115.pdf
Basically, if people want to accept NCEP estimates of SLAC to press the case for cosmic rays, then they cannot be critical of CRU which matches SLAC nicely.
if SLAC if right CRU is right. And SLAC, as you note, is not serived from surface stations, (ERA-40 does use station data)
simply: if cosmic rays explains the warming, then you must accept the warming it explains.
HenryP said:
“Obviously if they (clouds) move more towards the equator a larger surface area is covered leading to a higher albedo….
Let me know if somebody figured that one out.”
I’ve mentioned it a few times recently, Henry, but getting anyone to accept such a result from shifting the jets is an uphill task.
Then if the solar changes can shift the jets by altering the vertical temperature gradients in the atmosphere as I have proposed elsewhere by involving the reverse sign ozone effect from an increased downward NOx flux when the sun is more active then, voila, the solar mechanism is clear.
I guess it isn’t so obvious to everyone.
Check this out for weird in the following link. Average daily sunspot coverage per decade begins in 1880 at 12%. It has incremented exactly one percent each sunspot cycle to 23% coverage in the most recent cycle.
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/bfly.gif
A fraction of a percent long term change in albedo could easily account for observed warming since 1880. One percent lower albedo is about 13 fewer watts/meter of forcing at the surface. Compare that to 2 watts/meter for all anthropogenic greenhouse gases since 1750.
This is actually climate research that deserves more funding.
Ocean acidification is the going to be the last item on the manmade catastrophe agenda to fall by the wayside. At least that’s marine biology and we could stand to learn more about that.
Once all the CO2 nonsense is cleared off the table we can actually start a conversation about how to get cheap, abundant energy everywhere anyone needs it. That will do an enormous amount towards raising living standards for everyone.
Steven Mosher says:
November 26, 2010 at 1:03 am
“simply: if cosmic rays explains the warming, then you must accept the warming it explains.”
It’s not an all or nothing proposition. The reported warming may be exagerated and solar magnetic activity may play a major, minor, or no role at all in whatever actual warming really took place. I’d rather not be so vague but the science is very unsettled at this point.
Steven Mosher says:
November 25, 2010 at 9:44 pm
“psst: no politician would talk about logical impossibility”
Impossibilities often mean practical impossibilities.
In this case what was meant is it is practically impossible to make reliable climate forecasts. The plethora of factors that determine climate are not all well understood, exceedingly complex, interdependent, subject to constant change, and for things like volcanic eruptions, comet impacts, and CMEs are quite unpredictable. Taken together that means it’s practically impossible to make long term forecasts.
eadler says:
November 25, 2010 at 8:23 pm
“There is no real upward trend in neutron flux between 1950 and 2006. Of course “The Chilling Stars” wouldn’t contain that information.”
Well there is certainly a real upward trend in sunspots since 1880.
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/bfly.gif
Sunspot coverage has nearly doubled since 1880 with a curiously constant increment of an additional one percent coverage on each subsequent sunspot cycle.
November 25, 2010 at 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.
Leif Svalgaard says:
Not confounding, just wrong.
This is expected from Ninderthana’s Law: “If a statement disagrees with Leif’s view of the Universe, then it must be wrong.”
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 26, 2010 at 12:12 am
But you must if “the observation from this paper establishes that condensation is proportional to the impinging radiation.”
Are you serious? OK here is a gedanken situation:
Suppose that the only factor entering the problem is “condensation is proportional to impinging radiation” . This would mean that all the cloud cover is due to radiation. As in your plot the base radiation is something like 4000 counts, and the average is , eyeballing,4300 ( I am taking the left hand scale for the argument), the run of the mill cloud cover would be proportional to this 4300. Variations over this average would be the variations introduced by the changes seen in your plot, +/- 300 , something like 7%. On this 7% maybe 30 to 50%, i.e. 2 or 3 total percentage of more putative cloud cover from 2000 on than from 1990 to 2000. This is enough change in albedo to affect the incoming temperatures by enough watts to stabilize any increases or even start cooling. Which is the GCR hypothesis.
Now a multiplicity of factors enters the real world and this is a simplified argument from one of the factors but it cannot be excluded on principle..
alan says:
November 25, 2010 at 7:51 am
“Reminds me of something my daughter, who works for a big architectural firm told me recently. All architects working on large projects where any government funding might be involved have to insert stereotypical “green language” and green modifications to even have their proposals considered. Not surprisingly, most in the field are committed to AGW.”
Same thing happens in biology. A gratuitous mention of “evolution” without regard to relevance drastically increases the chance of a paper getting published.
I call such things “the secret handshake” due that being a classic mechanism by which members of organizations can recognize each other without explicitely mentioning the organization by name.
Leif wrote:
“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”
Leif,
Thanks for the reply – but what evidence is there that the energy source of the sun is as proposed?
By rhetorical inference or in situ examination?
And please excuse me if I don’t reply quickly as I will be away in the field supervising 3 drilling machines “testing” scientific hypotheses pertaining to the presence of mineral deposits inferred from remote geophysical data recently collected, for the next two weeks; I just have no internet connection.
As changes in surface temperatures follow the very large changes in the solar wind velocity, it would make sense that these would cause changes in cloud cover.
The much smaller changes in GCR`s are obviously driven by changes in the solar wind speed, but the tail does not wag the dog. Its paramount to saying that GCR`s drive temperature change.
I would also expect to see any short term correlation between GCR`s and cloud cover completely reverse from summer to winter, as we see in the temperature~precipitation relationship from summer to winter.
In winter, precipitation increases on the temperature uplifts.
In summer, precipitation increases on the temperature drops.
Henry@ur momisugly Stephen Wilde
Sorry Stephen, I cannot help you much, I hope you or somebody here will find that proof just like they now did with the H.Svensmark theory.
You are aware that suncycle activity can influence the UV output from the sun significantly and that this difference in UV affects the manufacture of ozone from oxygen?
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
(referring to the last part, i.e. the factors identified by me so far that I think can cause global warming or global cooling.
Ulric Lyons says:
November 26, 2010 at 4:07 am
In winter, precipitation increases on the temperature uplifts.
In summer, precipitation increases on the temperature drops.
precipitation vs. temperature
Clear example of positive correlation followed by negative correlation
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 25, 2010 at 8:04 am
Now, Vuk says that the correlation is negative except at times when it is positive. In my book that means ‘no correlation’.
This is far more amusing than I expected.
Looking at the long term (with help from Leif`s graph)
http://www.leif.org/research/Neutron-Monitor-Thule-Newark.png
correlating GCR levels through each solar cycle, to cloud cover changes, is like comparing surface temperatures to the roller coaster ride of the sunspot cycle through each min and max.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 25, 2010 at 10:46 pm
I’m trying to understand what they did..
..Anyway, Knieveton and Tinsley analysed the Wilcox effect [ http://www.utdallas.edu/nsm/physics/pdf/tin_dcgcc.pdf ] using superposed epoch analysis around ‘sector boundaries’ [crossings of the Heliospheric Current Sheet]. I have just done an analysis of the hourly GCR flux at Thule for the 1470 crossings during 1957-2010. The result is here: http://www.leif.org/research/Cosmic-Rays-Thule-SB.png
The right-hand side shows the variation for every hour within 40 days on either side of the Sector Boundaries [which were nominally always taken to pass at 0:00h UT]. You see several things:
1) the 10 count daily variation [we know why: we are overtaking GCRs during half of the day and running into them during the other half due to Earth’s rotation]
2) A clear enhancement [larger than the daily variation] right at the boundary [and the day before and after]
3) The enhancements sjow up 27 days before and 27 days after, because the sector boundaries often recur every 27 days. This proves the reality of the effect as noise would not this behavior.
The power spectrum to the left shows the daily peak and the 27-day peak (“1″) and several of its harmonics [“2″,”3”, etc].
~
You’re trying to understand WHAT they did.. I’m trying to understand WHEN..
But thanks for steering us around to some of the HOW some GCR penetrate.
All this discussion, geez.
Decrease in solar output over the last couple years, the whole heliosphere contracts, Earth’s atmosphere lowers, and the cosmic radiation belt bloats a whopping 20%. 20% increase and let me say these clouds are cold as all get up and low. Not much trapping of heat beneath them where I live.
vukcevic says:
November 26, 2010 at 4:25 am
Ulric Lyons says:
November 26, 2010 at 4:07 am
In winter, precipitation increases on the temperature uplifts.
In summer, precipitation increases on the temperature drops.
precipitation vs. temperature
Clear example of positive correlation followed by negative correlation
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 25, 2010 at 8:04 am
Now, Vuk says that the correlation is negative except at times when it is positive. In my book that means ‘no correlation’.
This is far more amusing than I expected.
~
Not so amusing as confusing, if cycle stays low and lower GCR will be the new talk of the town.
How to add electrons to the upper atmosphere..through ‘diffuse aruora,’ not to be confused with the ever popular, ‘discrete aurora.’
~
New research provides insights into space weather, could benefit satellites, aircraft
By UCLA Newsroom October 20, 2010
Settling decades of scientific debate, researchers from UCLA and the British Antarctic Survey have discovered the final link between electrons trapped in space and the glow of light from the upper atmosphere known as the diffuse aurora.
Their research appears Oct. 21 in the journal Nature.
Scientists have long known that the diffuse aurora is caused by electrons striking the Earth’s upper atmosphere. The question has long been how these electrons reach the atmosphere, since electrons are normally trapped much higher up in the Earth’s magnetic field through a long chain of events starting with the sun.
Since the 1970s, scientists have debated whether very low-frequency (VLF) radio waves could be responsible for scattering the trapped electrons into the atmosphere. Two types of VLF waves were identified in space as the possible cause of the diffuse aurora, but despite years of argument and research, no conclusive result had been reached.
The new research shows, “without doubt, that VLF waves known as ‘chorus’ are responsible, so-called since the signals detected by ground-based recording equipment sound like the bird’s dawn chorus when played back through a loud speaker,” said the Nature paper’s lead author, Richard Thorne, a UCLA professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences.
Chorus waves are very low-frequency radio waves that come from space and are first detected on the ground.
..Through detailed analysis of satellite data, Thorne and his colleagues were able to calculate the effects on the trapped electrons and identify which radio waves were causing the scattering.
“The breakthrough came when we realized that the electrons being lost from space to the Earth’s atmosphere were leaving a signature, effectively telling a story about how they were being scattered,” Thorne said. “We could then analyze our satellite data on the two types of VLF waves, and by running calculations on them — including the rate at which the electrons were being lost to the Earth’s atmosphere — we could clearly see that chorus waves were the cause of the scattering.”
“Our finding is an important one because it will help scientists to understand how the diffuse aurora leads to changes in the chemistry of the Earth’s upper atmosphere, including effects on ozone at high altitude, which may affect temperature right through the atmosphere,” said co-author Professor Richard Horne of the British Antarctic Survey. “We are also including the VLF waves in computer models to help predict ‘space weather,’ which affects not only satellites and power grids, but also the accuracy of GPS navigation and high-frequency radio communications with aircraft on polar routes.”
The diffuse aurora is not the same as the discrete aurora, also known as the northern and southern lights. The discrete aurora looks like fiery moving curtains of colorful light and can be seen by the unaided eye, while the diffuse aurora is much fainter but more extensive. The diffuse aurora, which typically accounts for three-quarters of the energy input into the upper atmosphere at night, varies according to the season and the 11-year solar cycle.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/new-research-provides-insights-176822.aspx
Diffuse aurora .. fainter but more extensive..accounts for three-quarters of the energy input into the upper atmosphere.. good stuff.. Happy Friday..
interesting but…
2 weeks data = no where near enough
1 years data = more like it.
hopefully the analysis is preliminary.
it’s never been entirely clear to me as to why clouds do get charged – is it the friction when they move against air?
Leif Svalgaard says: it’s “Falling raindrops rubbing against each other…”
I know I am at risk of sounding stupid, but I honestly don’t know. Why would you think that droplets rubbing each other can cause a charge of thousands and thousands of volts? I have never seen anything like that happening during my shower…?
anna v says:
November 26, 2010 at 3:09 am
Variations over this average would be the variations introduced by the changes seen in your plot, +/- 300 , something like 7%. On this 7% maybe 30 to 50%, i.e. 2 or 3 total percentage of more putative cloud cover from 2000 on than from 1990 to 2000.
The integral over from 1990.0 to 2000.0 is 4284 and from 2000.0 to 2010.7 is 4288. So, yes, I’m serious.
Ninderthana says:
November 26, 2010 at 2:53 am
This is expected from Ninderthana’s Law: “If a statement disagrees with Leif’s view of the Universe, then it must be wrong.”
Live by your own law, then.
Louis Hissink says:
November 26, 2010 at 3:39 am
but what evidence is there that the energy source of the sun is as proposed? By rhetorical inference or in situ examination?
What evidence is there that Jupiter is round or that Sirius is a double star or that the Sun’s surface temperature is 5777K or that the Sun contains Sodium? In situ examination?
The method is called ‘observation’. You simply see those things. From the properties of the radiation received you know things about the object you are watching. E.g. the color of the Sun tells us its temperature. Sometimes you need a telescope because your direct eyesight is not up to the task [e.g. to see that Jupiter is round]. To see into the core of the Sun we use a neutrino telescope. From the properties of the neutrinos observed we can say something about the interior of the Sun. What we see, we can compare with what we see with the same telescope when we use it to look at Terrestrial sources of neutrinos [that we make ourselves] and so gain confidence in the veracity of our observations, just like we can know that the surface temperature of the Sun is 5777K from comparison with the radiation we observe from bodies in the lab that we heat ourselves. When light passes through a medium containing Sodium, electrons in Sodium atoms change their energy. We observe that energy change as a line in the solar spectrum [the so-called ‘D’ line]. This is how we know that the electrons change and how much and only Sodium reacts in that precise way. So, we see that the Sun contains Sodium [‘if it looks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck etc’]. The nuclear reactions in the Sun emitneutrinos with specific energies. We observe neutrinos with just those energies and so [like with Sodium] can conclude that those reactions are present.
vukcevic says:
November 26, 2010 at 4:25 am
“Now, Vuk says that the correlation is negative except at times when it is positive. In my book that means ‘no correlation’.”
This is far more amusing than I expected.
You are right, your claims border on the edge of ridiculous rather than just amusing.
anna v says:
November 26, 2010 at 3:09 am
Variations over this average would be the variations introduced by the changes seen in your plot, +/- 300 , something like 7%. On this 7% maybe 30 to 50%, i.e. 2 or 3 total percentage of more putative cloud cover from 2000 on than from 1990 to 2000.
We can do some more integrals:
1957-70: 4281
1971-80: 4424
1981-90: 4155
1991-00: 4307
2000-10: 4315