Cosmic rays and clouds: using open science to clear the confusion
Download as PPT, PDF2 likes942 views
This document summarizes a presentation on the impact of solar variability on Earth's climate, presented at the Sun Climate Connections conference in 2015. The work highlights the unresolved controversy regarding cosmic ray-cloud links and suggests that open-access coding and robust statistical methods could improve future studies. Additionally, it emphasizes the need for a clearer understanding of the mechanisms connecting solar activity and climate, given the significant uncertainties and varying results in existing research.
Cosmic rays and clouds: using open science to clear the confusion
- 2. This work was presented at the conference on Sun Climate connections, in Kiel, Germany, 18th March 2015 The work is part of the COST Action TOSCA, Towards a more complete assessment of the impact of solar variability on the Earth’s Climate http://lpc2e.cnrs-orleans.fr/~ddwit/TOSCA/TOSCA/Home.html A YouTube video of Jasa Čalogović giving this talk is online at https://www.youtube.com/user/DrBenLaken We also have more info on this topic available at http://www.benlaken.com including articles, blogs, and videos
- 3. Kodera & Kuroda , 2002 Theoretical solar influence on climate
- 4. Laken & Čalogović, 2015, Chapter 4.7, TOSCA handbook Outline of the cosmic ray – cloud link
- 5. This remains a controversial topic… … and a beloved argument for climate skeptics
- 6. Scientific papers show conflicting results (eg. In short-term studies using Forbush decreases) • positive correlations: Tinsley & Deen, 1991; Pudovkin & Vertenenko, 1995; Todd & Kniveton, 2001; 2004; Kniveton, 2004; Harrison & Stephenson, 2006; Svensmark et al., 2009; Solovyev & Kozlov, 2009; Harrison & Ambaum, 2010; Harrison et al. 2011; Okike & Collier, 2011; Dragić et al. 2011; 2013; Svensmark et al., 2012; Zhou et al. 2013, Veretenko & Ogurtsov 2015, Tsonis et al. 2015 • negative correlations: Wang et al., 2006; Troshichev et al., 2008 • no correlations or inconclusive results: Pallé & Butler, 2001; Lam & Rodger, 2002 ; Kristjánsson et al., 2008 ; Sloan & Wolfendale, 2008; Laken et al., 2009; Čalogović et al., 2010; Laken & Kniveton 2011; Laken et al., 2012 Why? •Improper use of statistical tools / wrong statistical assumptions •“quality” and properties of cloud datasets
- 7. We propose that using open-access coding solutions may help clear away the confusion… • Reliable methods/tests to overcome some noted difficulties: communal analysis approach • Implementation of robust significance testing (e.g. MC method) • Python (free + open, all platforms, easy to learn/use) • IPython: code in small editable units, code, figures, and descriptions mixed. Rapidly shared and reproduced. • Public Git repositories for communal development: a ‘living’ version with a history • Allows even low-skilled programmers to follow the analysis. Viewed online, any system (only internet browser needed) • Using FigShare code/figures have their own DOI
- 9. Identification of solar—terrestrial links has many issues… • Large uncertainties still remain • Exact amplifying mechanisms linking solar activity to climate still poorly understood -> not always possible to even evaluate them • Cross-correlation of solar signals complicate attribution • Most studies purely statistical -> tests of significance may be accompanied by ambiguities (data selection, treatment, methods and assumptions). Vulnerable to autocorrelations, smoothing, human bias and post-hoc hypotheses. • Such difficulties in relation to solar—terrestrial field described already by Pittock 1979, 1978
- 10. Big variability (noise) can be mixed with a hypothesised signal Dashed/dotted lines show correctly adjusted 2 and 3σ confidence intervals (CI) – calculated from 10,000 MC simulations, red line shows CI (2σ) calculated based on normalization period assuming that data aren’t temporally auto-correlated. 95 percentile(2σ) 99 percentile (3σ) Robust statictics (MC) show overly simplistic tests commonly applied (e.g. T-test) don't reliably assess significance • Weather/climate is highly variable (i.e. noise) -> only small fraction can reasonably be linked to solar activity (i.e. signal) • Climate data have strong spatio-temporal auto-correlation -> complicates statistical tests Example with clouds:
- 11. • Correlations appear significant only over short-timescales (low clouds, 1983–1995) • Long-term satellite cloud data susceptible to errors/artificial trends, eg. low clouds obscured by overlying clouds, changes in satellite constellations, misindentification of cirrus clouds… • Other climate forcings may influence clouds too (eg. ENSO, volcanic eruptions...) GCR flux ISCCP low cloud anomaly (%) Low clouds (<3.2km), global We conclude there is no cosmic ray cloud link visible in long-term global satellite cloud data Laken et al. (2012), SWSC, doi: 10.10015/swsc/2012018
- 12. Noise levels of data govern detectability of a signal. The figure shows how noise varies with both the spatial area (a) covered by the data, and the number of composite events (n). The majority of cosmic ray – cloud composites are limited by high noise levels to the point where signals should not be expected. 1 0 2 0 5 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 5 1 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 .1 0 .2 0 .5 1 2 5 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 97.5percentilecloudanomaly composite size (n)0 a r e a s iz e ( % o f t h e g lo b e ) 0 97.5percentilecloudanomaly ‘Noise’ indicated by 97.5th percentile values from 10,000 random composites of varying a and n size. Each point of grid represents another independent set of 10,000 MC simulations Short-term studies also have big limitations • Meteorological variability (noise) in clouds has to be reduced in order to detect the solar-related changes (signal) • Limited number of high-magnitude Forbush decrease events Laken & Čalogović, 2013, SWSC, doi: 10.1051/swsc/2013051
- 13. Laboratory and model experiments indicate there may be a small influence of ions on aerosols/clouds under certain conditions Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets Laboratory experiment with a cloud chamber to study the possible link between GCR and aerosol formation • Results show small contribution of ion-induced aerosol formation • Natural trace gases (acid-amine nucleation) tend to be much more effective in nucleation (Almeida et al., 2013, Nature) • Model experiments also show small impact on the global cloud cover (Pierce & Adams, 2009; Dunne et al. 20102)
- 14. What about localized aerosol — cloud effects? • There are places where aerosols are in short supply and limit cloud formation • Small changes in the CCN concentration from combustion in such locations have been shown to dramatically alter clouds (e.g. Rosenfeld et al., 2006; Koren et al., 2012). E.g. Marine stratocumulus clouds (MSc) (as investigated by Kristjánsson et al. 2008)
- 15. We will be using the MODIS cloud data MODerate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer • views in 36 channels from Visible to thermal IR, on board two polar orbiting satellites Aqua, and Terra, operational since 2000 • temporal resolution: 12h, spatial resolution: 1° x 1° • MODIS Terra & Aqua Daily Level-3 data, ver. 5.1 (MOD08.D3.051), available since 01.03.2000 till today
- 16. Early results from an analysis in IPython • MODIS Terra & Aqua Daily Level-3 data, ver. 5.1 (MOD08.D3.051) • Mask data by: (1) cloud-top pressure of >800 mb, (2) optical depth of 3.6 to 23.0, and (3) ocean-areas • We start with the 16 strongest Forbush decreases as proof of concept Advantages of analysis in IPython: •Can be applied to any dates rapidly •Easy selection of different cloud data (masks) •Implementation of robust statistical methods •Fast and scalable data processing
- 17. Cloud top pressure, optical depth and area cover for marine stratocumulus cloud
- 18. Test results Utilizes composite methods and sig. testing from Laken & Čalogović (2013). Aim to create a rapidly scalable/flexible test system, where users can specify the composite properties they wish to examine. We are simply testing the system with these events…
- 19. • GCR-cloud signal still undetected using global cloud satellite data • Diverse range of subtle, local-scale, impacts on clouds may still remain (e.g. high-level supercooled clouds) • Identification of solar—terrestrial links connected to many issues -> much uncertainty still pervades • Open access coding approach (IPython) allows us to better share experience/knowledge and solve some of the difficulties of past studies (reproducible work) Conclusions
- 20. Thank you This work received support from European COST Action ES1005 (TOSCA) and SOLSTEL (HRZZ project 6212). If you are interested in this topic or in viewing the work from this presentation you can visit: http://www.benlaken.com or follow us on twitter @benlaken
Editor's Notes
- #12: Climate proxies / cosmogenic isotopes – 10Be, 14C