DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.75428
Provisional
chapter
Chapter
5

Galactic Cosmic Rays and Low Clouds: Possible Reasons
forfor Correlation
Correlation Reversal
Reversal
Svetlana Veretenenko, Maxim Ogurtsov,
Ogurtsov,Markus Lindholm and Risto Jalkanen
Additional
is available
available at
at thethe endend ofof thethe chapter
chapter
Additional information
information is
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.75428

Abstract
Influence of galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) on cloud formation is suggested to be an important part of the mechanism of solar activity influence on weather and climate. A highpositive correlation between low cloud amount and GCR fluxes was observed in the
1980s–1990s; however, in the early 2000s, it was violated. In this work, we consider anature of long-term correlation links between cloud cover at middle latitudes and GCRs,
as well as possible reasons for this correlation reversal. It was shown that the GCR-cloud
links observed on the decadal time scale are indirect and caused by GCR effects on
cyclonic activity which depend on epochs of the large-scale atmospheric circulation. The
reversal of GCR-cloud correlation in the 2000s seems to be due to a sharp weakening of
the Arctic and Antarctic stratospheric polar vortices, which results in the change of thetroposphere-stratosphere coupling and, then, of GCR contribution to the development of
extratropical cyclogenesis.
Keywords: solar-atmospheric links, space weather, galactic cosmic rays, low clouds,
cyclonic activity, polar vortex

1. Introduction
Studying the influence of solar activity and related phenomena on the lower atmospherestate, weather and climate is one of most actual tasks of solar-terrestrial physics, which is due
to an important part of climatic changes for different aspects of human activity. One of thepossible mechanisms of this influence suggests an impact of galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) on
the cloud cover allowing amplifying noticeably a weak signal of solar variability in the Earth’s© 2016 The Author(s). Licensee InTech. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons© 2018 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative
Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use,
Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

80

Cosmic Rays

atmosphere. Indeed, cloudiness changes can strongly modulate fluxes of both incoming
short-wave solar radiation and outgoing long-wave radiation of the Earth and the atmosphereand, thus, influence significantly the radiative-thermal balance of the atmosphere. High-levelclouds contribute to the warming of the atmosphere, whereas low-level clouds contribute, asa rule, to its cooling. A net influx of radiation coming to the Earth’s surface under cloudy conditions depends on latitude, season and underlying surface. According to the data obtained
from spaceborne experiments [Nimbus 7 Earth Radiation Budget experiment (N7ERB) and
Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE)], when averaged over the globe, cloudiness
reduces the input of solar radiation by 44.5–54.3 W·m−2 (depending on the season) and theemission of long-wave radiation to space by 23.6–34.7 W·m−2 [1, 2]. As a result, cloudinessdecreases the global radiative heating of the atmosphere by 17.3–26.8 W·m−2.
The hypothesis about GCR influence on the cloudiness state was first put forward in 1975
by Dickinson [3]. He suggested that ionization changes due to GCR variations affect theformation of stratospheric aerosols, the main component being a water solution of sulfuric
acid H2SO4. Such aerosol particles of ~100 nm in size are effective cloud condensation nuclei(CCN) due to a high solubility of sulfuric acid in water which greatly lowers the saturated
vapor pressure over these particles compared with homogenous water nuclei. According toDickinson’s suggestions, the formation of aerosol particles is more probable on positively
charged water clusters H3O+(H2O)n (n = 5–7), the concentration of such clusters depending on
ionization in the atmosphere. So, changes in ionization may influence the rate of nucleation
processes and, thus, contribute to the formation of high-level (cirrus) clouds.
At present, we can note two possible ways of GCR influence on cloud formation: the ion-mediated (or induced) nucleation [3–7] and the mechanisms including changes in Global Electric
Circuit (for example, see [8, 9]). Ion-mediated nucleation (IMN) is the nucleation of aerosol
particles (which under certain conditions may later grow up to cloud condensation nuclei)
taking place in the presence of ions. An important source of new aerosols in the atmosphereis molecular clusters forming from water and sulfuric acid. However, clusters of subcriticalsizes (<1–2 nm) are unstable and easily destroyed by evaporation. When a cluster reaches acritical size of ~1–2 nm, surface tension forces start dominating and it gets stable. Such clusters
represent aerosol nuclei which may grow due to condensation and coagulation up to ~100 nm
which allows turning into a cloud condensation nucleus and take part in the formation of cloudparticles (~10–20 μm). Charged molecular clusters forming around ions are more stable due to
Coulomb attraction and can grow faster than neutral ones. Then, when ionization increases, aprobability of the formation of charged, more stable clusters becomes higher and this resultsin the increase of the nucleation rate. According to model calculations by Yu and Turco [5], a
25% increase of the ionization rate in the lower atmosphere could lead to an increase of theconcentration of aerosol particles capable for the further growth, with the diameter being >3
and >10 nm, by 16.5 and 9%, respectively, in several hours after the nucleation start.
Another way of GCR influence on clouds, which suggests changes in the Global Electric Circuit
caused by variation of atmospheric conductivity and ionospheric potential, has been developed by Tinsley and colleagues [8–11]. It is suggested that changes of conductivity due to GCRvariations, along with changes of ionospheric potential due to variations of interplanetary

Galactic Cosmic Rays and Low Clouds: Possible Reasons for Correlation Reversal
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.75428

magnetic fields influence a density Jz of downward ionosphere-Earth currents. In turn, thesecurrents, when flowing through high gradients of conductivity at cloud boundaries, contribute to a separation of positive and negative ions which quickly attach to droplets and aerosol
particles, including both cloud condensation nuclei and ice-forming nuclei. Electric charges onthese particles influence microphysical processes in clouds, enhancing their collision rate and‘sticking’ due to Coulomb attraction. In particular, this may result in more intensive freezing ofthermodynamically unstable super-cooled water droplets in high-level clouds (‘electrofreezing’) [10]. An increase of charge on aerosol particles also enhances the rate of their scavenging
by larger droplets due to the electric attraction between the charge on a particle and the image
charge which it creates on a droplet (‘electroscavenging’) [11]. Thus, charging cloud particles
associated with Jz variations results in a number of microphysical processes in clouds affecting
particle concentration and their size distribution.
First experimental data providing evidence for a possible influence of GCRs on the cloudiness formation were obtained by Pudovkin and Veretenenko [12]. They detected a decrease
in cloud cover and an increase in the frequency of occurrence of clear-sky days at middle andhigh latitudes in the course of short-term decreases of GCR intensity (Forbush decreases),with the data at the network of actinometric stations of the U.S.S.R. being used. The decreaseof cloud cover associated with Forbush decreases at the stations under study was also confirmed by an increase of the input of total radiation which includes both direct and scatteredsolar radiation [13]. Later a remarkable result showing cloud-GCR links on the decadal timescale was obtained by Svensmark and Friis-Christensen [14] basing on the satellite data ISCCP(International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project). The authors detected a variation of 3–4%
in global cloud amount which was strongly correlated with GCR intensity (the correlation
coefficient ~0.9) for the period 1984–1991. As a change of global cloud cover by 1% corresponds
to a net radiation change by 0.5 W.m−2 according to the estimates by Rossow and Cairns [15],Svensmark [16] concluded that the radiative forcing of the detected decrease of global cloud
cover by ~3% from 1987 to 1990 (i.e. from a minimum to a maximum of solar activity) may
amount to ~1.5 W.m−2. He suggested that cloud forcing associated with long-term GCR variations might explain most part of the temperature changes in the period 1975–1989. The results
gave rise to a lively discussion of GCR effects on the formation of clouds, as well as their rolein the mechanism of solar-atmospheric links (for example, see [17–19]).
The further studies by Marsh and Svensmark [20, 21] revealed that only low-level cloudamount correlates significantly with GCR intensity. The correlation coefficients between
globally averaged values of low cloud anomalies (LCA) according to the ISCCP-D2 satellite
data and the counting rate of the Huancayo neutron monitor amount to 0.63 and 0.92 forunsmoothed values and 12-month running averages, respectively, for the period 1984–1994.
However, in the second part of the 1990s the positive correlation LCA-GCR started weakening and broke down completely near 2000 [22, 23]. The observed violation of LCA-GCR correlation caused doubts in a possible influence of cosmic rays on cloud formation, as well as
their important role in the physical mechanism of solar-atmospheric links [22, 24, 25].
Thus, at the moment cloud-GCR relationship remains a rather controversial question. In
different studies, we can find the data both confirming and rebutting a possibility of GCR

81

82

Cosmic Rays

influence on cloud formation. Svensmark et al. [26] found a significant decrease of liquidwater in low clouds, as well as in fine aerosol concentration associated with strong GCR
Forbush decreases. A decrease of high-level clouds over the Antarctic in the course of
Forbush decreases of GCR intensity was revealed by Todd and Kniveton [27, 28] as well
as Laken and Kniveton [29] on the base of the ISCCP cloud data. Laken et al. [30] detectedchanges in cloud cover over middle latitudes (30–60°) of both hemispheres associated withshort-term changes in GCR intensity, using also the ISCCP data. However, no responses ofcloudiness to Forbush decreases were revealed by Čalogović et al. [31], Krissansen-Tottonand Davies [32].
As to the decadal time scale, the problem of GCR-cloud relations is complicated becauseof a number of other solar activity phenomena affecting the atmosphere and conditions forcloudiness formation simultaneously with cosmic rays. Kristjánsson et al. [33, 34] concluded
that low cloud cover correlates better with total solar irradiance (TSI) variations than withthose of GCRs, the suggested mechanism involving variations in sea surface temperature andtheir impact on low clouds. In the works by Voiculescu and colleagues [35–37], variations ofultraviolet radiation and solar wind disturbances are considered as possible factors influencing cloudiness state. In particular, it was noted that the effects of GCR and UV variations
on cloudiness state are characterized by regional and altitudinal dependencies [36]. In thiswork the areas of positive and negative correlations were revealed for low cloud amount and
GCRs. For middle and high clouds the areas of statistically significant correlations with GCRs
and UV radiation were also detected. The data in [37] provide evidence for a possible influence of interplanetary electric fields (IEE) modulated by solar wind speed and interplanetary
magnetic fields on cloud formation. The detected cloud-IEE correlations seem to indicate animportant part of downward atmospheric currents in the Global Electric Circuit for cloudparticle formation, as described in [8–11].
For an experimental verification of a possible influence of cosmic rays on the rate of nucleation and subsequent growth of clusters an experiment CLOUD (Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor
Droplets) was carried out at CERN (the European Organization for Nuclear Research) [38].
In this experiment there were investigated processes of cluster formation on the base of sulfuric acid, ammonia and water vapor, as well as ionization influence on these processes. The
results of the experiment CLOUD confirmed that in the presence of ions the nucleation rate
does really increase by a factor of ~10 under conditions typical for the middle troposphere(~5 km), the sulfuric acid and water being involved in nucleation. However, under conditionsin the lower part of the atmosphere the rate of the formation of clusters with the diameter~1.4 nm was found to be less by a factor of 10–10,000 than in the real atmosphere [38]. To reachnucleation rates corresponding to those measured in the lower atmosphere, the content ofammonia had to be substantially increased and the temperature had to be lowered to ~250°C[38, 39]. Another way to enhance nucleation was to add biogenic amines (dimethylamine), as
it was reported by Almeida et al. [40]. The results of this study carried out on the base of the
CLOUD chamber at CERN showed that dimethylamine can influence significantly nucleation
rates and account for the rates observed in the real atmosphere. These results indicate thatin the lower atmosphere a ternary nucleation seems to take place, with sulfuric acid, waterand bioorganic compounds being involved. However, the rate of the ternary nucleation was
found to depend weakly on ionization [40]. On the other hand, the experiments by Svensmark

Galactic Cosmic Rays and Low Clouds: Possible Reasons for Correlation Reversal
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.75428

et al. [41] revealed a noticeable link between the formation of CCN particles ~50 nm and ionization. Thus, the question of GCR influence on the intensity of nucleation and subsequent
growth of clusters to CCN sizes remains open and further experiments are needed.
Concerning observations in the real atmosphere, one should stress that direct effects of GCRs
and corresponding changes of ionization on microphysical processes in clouds seem to be
detectable only on rather short time scales (about several hours or days). On longer time scales
dynamic processes developing as a response to GCR variations (or to some other solar activity
phenomena) should be taken into account. Indeed, cloud enhancement according to any suggested mechanism (ion-mediated nucleation or mechanisms including atmosphere electricity
changes) results in changing radiative-thermal balance in the lower atmosphere and, consequently, in some changes in the structure of thermo-baric fields of the troposphere which,in turn, influence atmospheric circulation and the evolution of baric systems. If changes of
the thermo-baric field contribute to the deepening of low-pressure systems (cyclones andtroughs), cloud fields of these systems will be enhanced. Thus, monthly averaged cloudamount will include not only direct (microphysical) effects of GCR variations on cloud particle formation, but also indirect effects due to the circulation changes influencing cloudiness.
So, when considering cloud data on longer time scales, we cannot distinguish between primary (microphysical) GCR effects on clouds and secondary ones, resulting from circulation
changes associated with GCRs. Moreover, direct effects of GCRs on cloud characteristics seemto be weaker than those associated with long-term circulation disturbances. This point seems
to be of importance to understand the nature of cloud-GCR correlation on longer time scales.
An important point to be understood concerns the violation of correlations between cloudiness and GCR intensity occurred near 2000. As it was said above, this violation gave rise
to doubt the role of GCRs in the mechanism of solar-atmospheric links. However, temporalvariability of correlation links between the lower atmosphere characteristics and solar activity
characteristics is a rather typical feature of these links. The observed correlations may enhance,
weaken or even change the sign depending on time period. Veretenenko and Ogurtsov [42, 43]suggested that this variability may be due to changes of the epochs of the large-scale atmospheric circulation associated, in turn, with changes in the strength of the stratospheric polar
vortex. So, the question arises whether the observed violation of cloud-GCR links is a result ofa change in the character of helio-geophysical effects on tropospheric circulation. The aim of
this study is to consider the nature of correlation links detected between low clouds and GCRs
on the decadal time scale, as well as possible reasons for the violation of these links near 2000.

2. CGR effects on atmosphere dynamics and cloud fields
It is well known that the main reason for cloud formation is a vertical transport of water vapor
which results in its cooling and condensation (for example, see [44]). So, the formation ofcloud fields in the troposphere is determined by upward air movements which, in turn, areclosely related to atmospheric circulation.
At extratropical latitudes most large-scale upward movements, with the horizontal extent beingfrom several hundred to several thousand kilometers, are associated with low-pressure systems,

83

84

Cosmic Rays

cyclones and troughs. They result from a convergence of air flows near the Earth’s surface to thecyclone center or to the trough axis. Upward movements in the atmosphere are also associatedwith atmospheric fronts which are narrow transition zones between cold and warm air masses.
A front is called ‘warm’, if a warm air mass moves toward a cold one shifting it. Warm fronts
are characterized by regular ascending movements of air sliding slowly along a frontal surface.
These movements produce strong systems of frontal stratiform clouds Ns-As-Cs (nimbostratus
Ns, altostratus As and cirrostratus Cs) with continuous precipitation. Cold fronts arise when acold air mass moves toward a warm one. Cloud systems of slowly moving cold fronts are similar to those of warm ones. If a cold front is fast moving, vertical velocity of air movements before
this front is higher than before a warm one; this contributes to the development of convective
clouds, such as cumulonimbus (Cb) with storm precipitation and lightening (for example, [44]).
A merging of the cold and warm fronts (so-called ‘occlusion’) in the process of cyclone evolution results in the formation of an occluded front with the most complex cloud systems. A cloudfield of an atmospheric front is seen from satellites as a long band, with the width being usuallyless than 1000 km and the length reaching several thousand kilometers.
An extratropical cyclone is usually a frontal one, all its evolution being closely related to fronts.
First, a cyclone arises as a wave at cold front; then, it passes to the stage of a young cyclone
characterized by an existence of a warm sector, i.e. the area of warm air between its cold andwarm fronts. At the stage of the maximum development of a cyclone the occlusion starts andan occluded front is formed. At the final stage of cyclone evolution the occlusion continues,
a cyclone gets cold and slow and starts filling. A well-developed cyclone can be seen from asatellite as a cloud vortex with a spiral structure, the cloud field dimensions being comparablewith those of a cyclone (see Figure 1). Thus, frontal cloudiness develops at all the stages ofcyclone evolution. This results in a close connection between cloud fields and baric fields of theatmosphere, with baric field changes being accompanied by the evolution of cloud systems.

Figure 1. Cloud system of an extratropical cyclone over Alaska gulf (NASA Earth Observatory, photo by Jessy Allen andRobert Simon [45]). The center of the vortex is marked by A.

Galactic Cosmic Rays and Low Clouds: Possible Reasons for Correlation Reversal
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.75428

Let us consider variations of cloud cover at middle latitudes where the intensive cyclonicactivity takes place and compare them with pressure variations. As experimental base forthis study the cloud data from ISCCP (International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project)[46] available for the period from July 1983 to December 2009 were used. At present it is themost comprehensive and the longest archive of different cloud characteristics. According to
ISCCP classification clouds are divided into three types depending on pressure at cloud top(CP): low (CP > 680 hPa), middle (440 hPa < CP < 680 hPa) and high (CP < 440 hPa) clouds.
Cloud amount is defined as a fraction of the area covered by clouds of a definite type and isexpressed as a percentage of the total area. Anomalies of cloud amount are determined as
the difference between monthly values of cloud amount of the studied type and the climaticmean, i.e. cloud amount for a given month averaged over the whole period of observation.
In this study we consider monthly values of low cloud anomalies (LCA) from the ISCCP-D2
archive based on infrared (11 μm) radiance measurements [47]. Low-level cloudiness involves
stratus (St), nimbostratus (Ns) and stratocumulus (Sc), it may also involve convective cumulus (Cu). The data were taken for the mid-latitudinal belts 30–60° of both hemispheres which
are regions of intensive extratropical cyclogenesis. At these latitudes the ISCCP data are in arather good agreement with other satellite data (MODIS, UW HIRS), unlike polar ones [48].
In Figure 2a and b, temporal variations of LCA for the Northern and Southern hemispheresare presented. One can see a gradual decrease of low cloudiness from the early 1980s to 2009,

Figure 2. Left: Temporal variations of LCA (monthly values) at the latitudes 30–60° in the Northern (a) and Southern(b) hemispheres. Right: Temporal variations of detrended values of LCA in the Northern and Southern hemispheres(c) and detrended values of LCA in the Northern hemisphere versus those in the Southern one. Thick lines show
linear (a, b) and polynomial (c) trends in LCA variations.

85

86

Cosmic Raysa reason for this decrease being not quite clear. According to [49], the trends may be due tosome changes in the satellite view angles. However, as it will be shown later, this decrease ofcloudiness may be also associated with long-term weakening of cyclonic activity in the belts
under study. In any case, for our analysis of cloud-GCR links, we detrend values of LCA andGCR intensity.
Removal of linear trend in LCA reveals (Figure 2c) that low cloud anomalies in the Northernand Southern hemispheres have a rather high similarity. The correlation coefficient between
these values amounts to 0.62 (Figure 2d), the statistical significance being 0.95 according to
the random-phase test [50]. LCA variations in both hemispheres seem to be also characterized
by a roughly 20-year periodicity. This periodicity, which is close to the magnetic Hale cycle on
the Sun, was detected in many climatic parameters (for example, see [51, 52]), including theintensity of extratropical cyclogenesis in the North Atlantic [53]. Thus, the ~20-year periodicity indicates a link between cloudiness and the evolution of dynamic processes in the lower
atmosphere.
Let us now compare temporal variations of LCA and GCR intensity. To characterize GCR
intensity we used monthly values of charged particle fluxes FCR measured in the stratosphere at ~15–20 km (in the maximum of the transition curve) at the mid-latitudinal station
Dolgoprudny (geomagnetic cutoff rigidity Rc = 2.35 GV) near Moscow [54]. Variations of LCA
and FCR monthly values, the linear trends being subtracted, are presented in Figure 3. We cansee that till ~2000 LCA and GCR intensity varied in a similar way, but then this similarity was
violated. Indeed, the correlation coefficients between yearly values of LCA and GCR fluxes
for sliding 11-year intervals (Figure 4) show that cloud-GCR links were the closest in bothhemispheres from the middle 1980s to the middle 1990s, the correlation coefficients amounting to ~0.6–0.8. The statistical significance levels (dotted lines in Figure 4) for the correlation
coefficients were estimated on the base of Monte-Carlo simulations of sliding coefficients forsurrogate time series obtained by a randomization of initial ones. In the indicated period
the cloud-GCR correlations were most significant (the significance level 0.95–0.99), but since~2000 they started to decrease sharply and in the early 2000s correlation became negative inboth hemispheres.

Figure 3. Temporal variations of detrended monthly values of LCA and GCR fluxes in the Northern (a) and Southern(b) hemispheres. Thick lines show 12-month running averages of LCA.

Galactic Cosmic Rays and Low Clouds: Possible Reasons for Correlation Reversal
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.75428

Figure 4. Correlation coefficients between yearly values of LCA and GCR fluxes for sliding 11-year intervals in the
Northern (solid red line) and Southern (dashed blue line) hemispheres. Dotted lines show the significance levels of thecorrelation coefficients.

Taking into account a close link between cloudiness and dynamic processes in the atmosphere,
let us consider pressure variations at middle latitudes. As a characteristic of pressure we used
geopotential heights of the pressure level 700 hPa (GPH700), taken from NCEP/NCAR reanalysis archive [55]. The indicated level is related to the free atmosphere where effects of Earth’s
surface friction on air motion are negligible, and its heights correlate well with surface pressure. Temporal variations of 12-month running averages of GPH700 values area-averaged
over the belts 30–60° in both hemispheres are shown in Figure 5 for the period 1948–2013. One
can see that long-term variations of pressure differ noticeably in these belts, which implies that
cyclonic processes at middle latitudes of the Northern and Southern hemispheres develop toa great extent independently. However, during the period of ISCCP observations (1983–2009)pressure in the studied belts was gradually increasing, i.e. cyclonic processes were weakening. As cloud fields are produced by upward air movements closely associated with largescale low-pressure areas, a weakening of cyclonic processes had to result in a decrease ofcloud cover. Thus, LCA decrease during the period 1983–2009 is consistent with observedpressure changes.
In Figure 6a and b, pressure (GPH700) anomalies in the belts 30–60°N (S), calculated similarly
to low cloud anomalies, are compared with GCR variations, with the data being averaged
over a year and the linear trends being removed. From the early 1980s to ~2000 pressure at
middle latitudes of the Northern hemisphere and GCR variations developed in the opposite phases, i.e. GCR increases were accompanied by cyclone intensification and pressure
decrease, which agrees well with the effects detected in [42]. However, this link was destroyednear 2000. A similar situation took place in the Southern hemisphere. However, unlike theNorthern one, where GCR effects are pronounced in almost all the belt 30–60°, GCR effects on
cyclone evolution in the Southern hemisphere are restricted by the areas of climatic lows near

87

88

Cosmic Rays

Figure 5. Long-term variations of tropospheric pressure (12-month running averages of GPH700) in the belts 30–60° of
the Northern (a) and Southern (b) hemispheres. Red lines show polynomial trends.

Antarctic coasts in the South Atlantic and the Indian ocean, as well at climatic Polar fronts
over the South Pacific [42]. So, GPH700 anomalies for the Southern hemisphere (Figure 6b)
were calculated for these cyclonic areas.

Figure 6. Left: Temporal variations of GPH700 anomalies in the belts 30–60° and GCR fluxes (detrended yearly values)in the Northern (a) and Southern (b) hemispheres. Right: Correlation coefficients for sliding 11-year intervals between
LCA and GCR fluxes (dashed lines), GPH700 anomalies and GCR fluxes (solid lines) in the Northern (c) and Southern (d)hemispheres. In the Southern hemisphere, the correlation coefficients are shown for the whole belt 30–60°S (light greenline) and for the cyclonic areas (dark green line). Dotted lines show the significance levels of the correlations coefficients
between GPH700 and GCR fluxes.

Galactic Cosmic Rays and Low Clouds: Possible Reasons for Correlation Reversal
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.75428

Thus, the data presented in Figure 6 (left) show that before ~2000 GCR increases in thesolar minima contributed to extratropical cyclone intensification at middle latitudes of bothhemispheres, but near 2000 the character of the pressure-GCR link was abruptly changed.
This is confirmed by the temporal behavior of correlation coefficients for sliding 11-year
intervals between detrended yearly values of GPH700 anomalies and GCR fluxes shown in
Figure 6 (right). From the middle 1980s to the middle 1990s, the strongest negative correlation, with R(GPH, FCR) reaching approximately −0.8 and statistically significant at the level
0.98 according to Monte-Carlo estimates, was observed throughout the mid-latitudinal beltof the Northern hemisphere and in the cyclonic areas of the Southern one. In this period
we can see the most pronounced positive correlation between low clouds and GCR fluxes
which is consistent with GCR effects on cyclone development. Then, a negative correlation
between pressure and GCR fluxes started weakening and its sign reversal took place inthe early 2000s. Simultaneously with the weakening of the pressure-GCR correlation, we
observe the corresponding weakening of a positive correlation between low clouds andGCR variations, as well as this correlation turning negative in the early 2000s. Thus, theobtained results suggest that cloud-GCR correlation links at middle latitudes observed on
the decadal time scale are closely related to GCR effects on the development of cyclonicprocesses.

3. Polar vortex as a possible reason for the variability of GCR effects
on the lower atmosphere
It is well known that temporal variability is a characteristic feature of solar-atmospheric links(see, for example, [56]). Correlation links observed between lower atmosphere characteristics and phenomena related to solar activity may weaken, disappear and even change signdepending on time period. So, a violation of the cloud-GCR link in the 2000s is not an extraordinary event. Herman and Goldberg [56] suggested that a reason for temporal variability ofsolar-atmospheric links may be long-term processes of the Sun which do not influence sunspot
numbers and/or some changes of atmospheric conditions. Veretenenko and Ogurtsov [42, 43]
showed that temporal behavior of correlation links between surface pressure at extratropicallatitudes and sunspot numbers is characterized by a roughly 60-year periodicity caused bychanges in the epochs of the large-scale atmospheric circulation. The reversals of the correlation signs were found in the end of the nineteenth century, in the early 1920s, the 1950s andthe early 1980s coinciding with climatic regime shifts at middle latitudes [57], as well as withthe transitions between cold and warm epochs in the Arctic [58]. So, a violation of the cloudGCR link in the 2000s seems not to be unexpected and may be associated with the next changeof the circulation epochs resulting in the change of GCR contribution to extratropical cyclonicactivity and, then, to cloud field formation.
According to the suggestions in [58], the changes of the circulation epochs are closely related
to the state of the polar vortex. The polar vortex is a cyclonic circulation forming in a cold
air mass in the polar region of the Northern and Southern hemispheres and spreading fromthe middle troposphere to the upper stratosphere. A circular air motion in the vortex results

89

90

Cosmic Rays

in a decrease of heat exchange between polar and middle latitudes and this contributes toa temperature drop inside the vortex and an increase of temperature gradients at its edges(see Figure 7). The vortex can also be seen as a region of enhanced velocity of zonal winds
in the stratosphere during cold months for the given hemisphere, the highest values being
observed at latitudes 50–80° at the pressure levels above 50 hPa.
The polar vortex is an important factor of the large-scale atmospheric circulation and climate
variability. Gudkovich et al. [58] showed that the rotation of cold and warm epochs in the
Arctic are caused by changes of the vortex intensity, warm and cold epochs being associated with a strong and weak vortex, respectively. Indeed, under strong vortex conditions
cyclone tracks are shifted to the north [59] and more North-Atlantic cyclones arrive in thepolar region bringing warm air. An important feature of the polar vortex is its influence on
the troposphere-stratosphere coupling via planetary waves. Propagation of planetary waves
upward depends on stratospheric circulation (for example, [60, 61]). If the vortex is strong
and a velocity of western winds in the stratosphere exceeds some critical value, these waves
are reflected back to the troposphere. If the vortex is weak, planetary waves propagate freely
upward. So, the stratosphere may influence the troposphere under a strong vortex regime.
Under a weak vortex, only the troposphere may influence the stratosphere. This point seems
to be of importance to understand the observed temporal variability of solar activity/GCR
effects on tropospheric circulation.
Let us consider variations of the polar vortex intensity and compare them with temporal
behavior of GCR effects on cyclonic activity and clouds. To characterize the vortex strength,
we used zonally averaged velocity of western winds (i.e. the U-component of wind velocity
directed from west to east from [55]) at the level 50 hPa (~20 km). In Figure 8 (top panel) there
are presented variations (detrended values) of mean zonal wind velocity in the belts 60–80°
in both hemispheres averaged for six cold months (October-March in the Northern hemisphere and April-September in the Southern one). The correlation coefficients R(GPH, FCR)
and R(LCA,FCR) for sliding 11-year intervals are shown in Figure 8 (bottom panel).

Figure 7. Distribution of mean monthly temperature at the pressure level 20 hPa (a) and of magnitude of horizontal
temperature gradients (b) in the Northern hemisphere in January 2005. White asterisk indicates a minimum of
temperature in the vortex; thick black line connects the points of maximal values of the temperature gradient at given
latitude.

Galactic Cosmic Rays and Low Clouds: Possible Reasons for Correlation Reversal
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.75428

Figure 8. Top: Variations of mean zonal velocity of western winds (the U-component) at the stratospheric level 50 hPa in thebelt 60–80° for cold months in the Northern (a) and Southern (c) hemispheres. Thick lines show 11-year running averages
and polynomial fits. Bottom: Correlation coefficients for sliding 11-year intervals between LCA and GCR fluxes (dashedlines), GPH700 anomalies and GCR fluxes (solid lines) in the Northern (b) and Southern (d) hemispheres. Dotted lines show
the significance levels of the correlation coefficients. The period of an enhanced vortex is marked by vertical dashed lines.

From the middle 1980s to the middle 1990s the polar vortices in both hemispheres wereenhanced. The vortex enhancement was the most prominent in the Northern hemisphere, thewind velocity increasing up to 4–7 m.s−1 relative to the trend values. This agrees well with thedata [62] showing no strong sudden stratospheric warming destroying the vortex in the indicated period. The vortex in the Southern hemisphere is more stable than that in the Northernone; however, we can also see a noticeable increase in wind velocity. The data in Figure 8
show that in the period of the vortex enhancement most statistically significant correlations
between pressure (cyclonic intensity) and GCR fluxes, as well as between low clouds and
GCR fluxes take place. In the late 1990s both the vortices and the correlations GPH–GCR and
LCA–GCR in both hemispheres started weakening. A sharp decrease of the wind velocities
resulting in the vortex transition to its weak state occurred near 2000 in both hemispheres.
The reversal of correlation coefficients under study coincided well with the transition of thevortices to a weak state. Thus, the presented data allow suggesting that the violation of thecorrelation between low cloudiness and GCR intensity detected on the decadal scale is closely
related to the change of the polar vortex strength.
The results of this study confirm that the changes of the atmosphere state, in particular, of
the intensity of the stratospheric polar vortex, may be a real reason for the observed temporal variability of solar-atmospheric links. Indeed, sign reversals of correlation links between

91

92

Cosmic Rays

troposphere pressure in the Northern hemisphere and sunspot numbers during the twentiethcentury coincided with the changes in the evolution of the large-scale circulation, which, inturn, were associated with the polar vortex transitions from one state to another [42, 43].
A roughly 60-year periodicity was revealed in the vortex strength, the phases of the Arctic
Oscillation being used as a proxy of the vortex intensity [43], which is consistent with a similar
periodicity found earlier in correlation links between pressure at extratropical latitudes andsunspot numbers [42]. Thus, the data presented in this study revealed the next change of thevortex state, which resulted in the reversal of correlation links between atmosphere characteristics and phenomena associated with solar activity.
The detected modulation of long-term solar activity/GCR effects on troposphere dynamics
by the polar vortex state seems to be due to its role in troposphere-stratosphere coupling via
planetary waves. As it was said above, the stratosphere may influence the troposphere only
under a strong vortex regime when planetary waves are reflected back to the troposphere.
Hence, a strong vortex regime seems to be more favorable to transfer a signal produced in
the polar stratosphere by GCRs (or other solar activity phenomena) to the troposphere, aschanges in the vortex formation region may influence its intensity and, then, conditions for
propagation of planetary waves. Indeed, we can see that GCR effects on cyclonic activity are
most pronounced under a strong vortex (see Figures 6 and 8) that agrees well with the previous data [42]. Thus, the results of this study provide new evidence for an important part of thepolar vortex in the mechanism of solar activity/GCR influence on the troposphere dynamics
on the decadal and longer time scales.
Let us note a favorable location of the vortex for GCR effects on the lower atmosphere. The
vortex is formed in the region of low geomagnetic cutoff rigidities (Rc < 2–3 GV) that allows
particles with a broad energy range to precipitate, including low-energy GCR component
which is strongly modulated by solar activity. Wind velocities in the vortex reach maximal
values at the heights ~20–30 km where the maximum of the transition curve is observed[63]. This height range also involves the layer of stratospheric aerosols consisting mainly ofwater solution of sulfuric acid (the Junge layer) (for example, [64]). This creates conditions
for influence of ionization changes on aerosol formation which, in turn, may influence theradiative-thermal balance and temperature in the stratosphere and, as a result, the vortex
characteristics.
We should also stress that the data presented above do not imply a lack of GCR influence on
microphysical processes in clouds. However, they suggest that the formation of cloud-GCR
correlation links differs depending on the time scale. GCR variations may influence nucleation rates and growth of particles in clouds according to IMN and/or electric mechanisms[3–11], but this influence may be detected only on rather short time scales (from hours toseveral days) until the response of atmosphere dynamics to radiative forcing of cloud changes
enhances or weakens initial microphysical effects. On longer time scale direct effects of GCRs
on cloud formation are masked by more powerful indirect effects through circulation changes
associated with GCR variations, these indirect effects depending on the polar vortex state.
Taking into account this suggestion, the violation of cloud-GCR correlation links detected
near 2000 may be explained.

Galactic Cosmic Rays and Low Clouds: Possible Reasons for Correlation Reversal
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.75428

4. Conclusion
The question of cloud-GCR links remains controversial and requires new studies, both experimental and theoretical, to evaluate a real contribution of galactic cosmic rays to solar activity
influence on the Earth’s climate. The data presented in this chapter show that possible links
between clouds and GCR variations on the decadal and longer time scales could involve not only
direct (microphysical) effects, but mostly indirect ones mediated by circulation changes. Thisshould be taken into account when considering long-term GCR effects on the cloudiness state.
An important part in the formation of long-term GCR effects on cloud cover at extratropical latitudes seems to be played by the stratospheric polar vortex. The state of the vortex controls thestratosphere-troposphere coupling creating more favorable conditions for GCR influence on
extratropical cyclonic activity and, consequently, on cloud cover under a strong vortex regime.
In this connection, a high positive correlation of low cloudiness and GCR variations in the
1980s–1990s, which was the period of a strong vortex, may be explained by a pronounced intensification of extratropical cyclones associated with GCR increases in the minima of the 11-year
solar cycle. A sharp change of the vortex state near 2000 both in the Northern and Southernhemispheres altered the character of GCR effects on cyclone evolution and, thus, resulted in a
violation of cloud-GCR correlation links observed earlier under strong vortex conditions.

Author details
Svetlana Veretenenko1*, Maxim Ogurtsov1, Markus Lindholm2 and Risto Jalkanen2*Address all correspondence to: s.veretenenko@mail.ioffe.ru
1 Ioffe Institute, Sankt-Petersburg, Russia
2 Natural Resources Institute, Finland

References[1] Harrison EF, Minnis P, Barkstrom BR, Ramanathan V, Cess RD, Gibson GG. Seasonalvariation of cloud radiative forcing derived from the earth radiation budget experiment.
Journal of Geophysical Research. 1990;95:18687-18703. DOI: 10.1029/JD095iD11p18687[2] Ardanuy PE, Stowe LL, Gruber A, Weiss M. Shortwave, longwave, and net cloud-radiative forcing as determined from Nimbus 7 observations. Journal of Geophysical Research.
1991;96:18537-18549. DOI: 10.1029/91JD01992[3] Dickinson RE. Solar variability and the lower atmosphere. Bulletin of the American
Meteorological Society. 1975;56:1240-1248. DOI: 10.1175/1520-0477(1975)056<1240:SVAT
LA>2.0.CO;2

93

94

Cosmic Rays[4] Yu F, Turco RP. Ultrafine aerosol formation via ion-mediated nucleation. GeophysicalResearch Letters. 2000;27:883-886. DOI: 10.1029/1999GL011151[5] Yu F, Turco RP. From molecular clusters to nanoparticles: The role of ambient ionizationin tropospheric aerosol formation. Journal of Geophysical Research. 2001;106:4797-4814.
DOI: 10.1029/2000JD900539[6] Carslaw KS, Harrison RG, Kirkby J. Cosmic rays, clouds and climate. Science. 2002;298:
1732-1737. DOI: 10.1126/science.1076964[7] Kazil J, Lovejoi ER. Tropospheric ionization and aerosol production: A model study.
Journal of Geophysical Research. 2004;109:D19206. DOI: 10.1029/2004JD004852[8] Tinsley BA. The global atmospheric electric circuit and its effects on cloud microphysics.
Reports on Progress in Physics. 2008;71:66801-66900. DOI: 10.1088/0034-4885/71/6/066801[9] Tinsley BA. A working hypothesis for connections between electrically-induced changes
in cloud microphysics and storm vorticity, with possible effects on circulation. Advancesin Space Research. 2012;50:791-805. DOI: 10.1016/j.asr.2012.04.008[10] Tinsley BA, Deen GW. Apparent tropospheric response to MeV-GeV particle flux
variations: A connection via electrofreezing of supercooled water in high-level clouds?
Journal of Geophysical Research. 1991;96:22283-22296. DOI: 10.1029/91JD02473[11] Tinsley BA. Influence of solar wind on the global electric circuit, and inferred effects
on cloud microphysics, temperature, and dynamics in the troposphere. Space Science
Reviews. 2000;94:231-258. DOI: 10.1023/A:1026775408875[12] Pudovkin MI, Veretenenko SV. Cloudiness decreases associated with Forbush-decreasesof galactic cosmic rays. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics. 1995;57:
1349-1355. DOI: 10.1016/0021-9169(94)00109-2[13] Veretenenko SV, Pudovkin MI. Effects of the galactic cosmic ray variations on the solar
radiation input in the lower atmosphere. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial
Physics. 1997;59:1739-1746. DOI: 10.1016/S1364-6826(96)00183-6[14] Svensmark H, Friis-Christensen E. Variations of cosmic ray flux and global cloud coverage – A missing link in solar–climate relationships. Journal of Atmospheric and SolarTerrestrial Physics. 1997;59:1225-1232. DOI: 10.1016/S1364-6826(97)00001-1[15] Rossow WB, Cairns B. Monitoring changes of clouds. Climatic change. 1995;31:175-217.
DOI: 10.1007/BF01095151[16] Svensmark H. Influence of cosmic rays on Earth’s climate. Physical Review Letters.1998;
81:5027-5030. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.5027[17] Kernthaler SC, Toumi R, Haigh JD. Some doubts concerning a link between cosmic
ray fluxes and global cloudiness. Geophysical Research Letters. 1999;26:863-865. DOI:
10.1029/1999GL900121

Galactic Cosmic Rays and Low Clouds: Possible Reasons for Correlation Reversal
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.75428[18] Gierens K, Ponater M. Comment on “Variations of cosmic ray flux and global cloud
coverage – A missing link in solar–climate relationships” by H. Svensmark, E. FriisChristensen (1997). Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics. 1999;61:795797. DOI: 10.1016/S1364-6826(99)00040-1[19] Jørgensen TS, Hansen AW. Comments on “Variation of cosmic ray flux and global cloud
coverage – A missing link in solar-climate relationships” by Henrik Svensmark and Eigil
Friis-Christensen. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics. 2000;62:73-77.
DOI: 10.1016/S1364-6826(99)00106-6[20] Marsh N, Svensmark H. Low cloud properties influenced by cosmic rays. PhysicalReview Letters. 2000;85:5004-5007. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.5004[21] Marsh N, Svensmark H. Cosmic rays, clouds, and climate. Space Science Reviews.
2000;94:215-230. DOI: 10.1023/A:1026723423896[22] Gray LJ, Beer J, Geller M, Haigh JD, Lockwood M, Matthes K, et al. Solar influences on
climate. Reviews in Geophysics. 2010;48:RG4001. DOI: 10.1029/2009RG000282[23] Ogurtsov M, Lindholm M, Jalkanen R. Global warming – Scientific facts, problems andpossible scenarios. In: Tarhule A, editor. Climate Variability – Regional and Thematic
Patterns. Croatia, Rijeka: InTech; 2013. pp. 75-103. DOI: 10.5777/56077[24] Sloan T, Wolfendale AW. Testing the proposed causal link between cosmic rays and cloud
cover. Environmental Research Letters. 2008;3:024001. DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/3/2/024001[25] Erlykin AD, Wolfendale AW. Cosmic ray effects on cloud cover and their relevance toclimate change. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics. 2011;73:1681-1686.
DOI: 10.1016/j.jastp2011.03.001[26] Svensmark H, Bondo T, Svensmark J. Cosmic ray decreases affect atmospheric aerosols
and clouds. Geophysical Research Letters. 2009;36:L15101. DOI: 10.1029/2009GL038429[27] Todd M, Kniveton DR. Changes of cloud cover associated with Forbush decreases ofgalactic cosmic rays. Journal of Geophysical Research. 2001;106:32031-32042. DOI: 10.
1029/2001JD000405[28] Todd M, Kniveton DR. Short-term variability in satellite-derived cloud cover and galactic
cosmic rays: An update. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics. 2004;66:
1205-1211. DOI: 10.1016/j.jastp.2004.05.002[29] Laken BA, Kniveton DR. Forbush decreases and Antarctic cloud anomalies in the upper
troposphere. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics. 2011;73:371-376. DOI:
10.1016/j.jastp.2010.03.008[30] Laken BA, Kniveton DR, Frogley MR. Cosmic rays linked to rapid mid-latitude cloudchanges. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. 2010;10:10941-10948. DOI: 10.5194/acp10-10941-2010

95

96

Cosmic Rays

[31] Čalogović J, Albert C, Arnold F, et al. Sudden cosmic ray decreases: No change of global
cloud cover. Geophysical Research Letters. 2010;37:L03802. DOI: 10.1029/2009GL041327[32] Krissansen-Totton J, Davies R. Investigation of cosmic ray–cloud connections using
MISR. Geophysical Research Letters. 2013;40:5240-5245. DOI: 10.1002/grl.50996[33] Kristjánsson JE, Staple A, Kristiansen J, Kaas E. A new look at possible connections between
solar activity, clouds and climate. Geophysical Research Letters. 2002;29:2107-2111. DOI:
10.1029/2002GL015646[34] Kristjánsson JE, Kristiansen J, Kaas E. Solar activity, cosmic rays, clouds and climate –An update. Advances in Space Research. 2004;34:407-415. DOI: 10.1016/j.asr.2003.02.040[35] Voiculescu M, Usoskin I, Mursula K. Different response of clouds at the solar input.
Geophysical Research Letters. 2006;33:L21802. DOI: 10.1029/2006GL027820[36] Voiculescu M, Usoskin I. Persistent solar signatures in cloud cover: Spatial and temporal analysis. Environmental Research Letters. 2012;7:044004. DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/
7/4/044004[37] Voiculescu M, Usoskin I, Condurache-Bota S. Clouds blown by the solar wind. Environ­mental Research Letters. 2013;8:045032. DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/045032[38] Kirkby J, Curtius J, Almeida J, et al. Role of sulfuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation. Nature. 2011;476:429-435. DOI: 10.1038/
nature10343[39] Dunne EM, Gordon H, Kurten A, et al. Global atmospheric particle formation from CERNCLOUD measurements. Science. 2016;354:1119-1124. DOI: 10.1126/science.aaf2649[40] Almeida J, Schobesberger S, Kurten A, et al. Molecular understanding of sulphuric acidamine particle nucleation in the atmosphere. Nature. 2013;502:359-363. DOI: 10.1038/
nature12663[41] Svensmark H, Enghoff MB, Pedersen JOP. Response of cloud condensation nuclei (>50 nm)
to changes in ion-nucleation. Physics Letters A. 2013;377:2343-2347. DOI: 10.1016/j.physleta.
2013.07.004[42] Veretenenko S, Ogurtsov M. Regional and temporal variability of solar activity and galactic cosmic ray effects on the lower atmosphere circulation. Advances in Space Research.
2012;49:770-783. DOI: 10.1016/j.asr.2011.11.020[43] Veretenenko S, Ogurtsov M. Stratospheric polar vortex as a possible reason for temporalvariations of solar activity and galactic cosmic ray effects on the lower atmosphere circulation. Advances in Space Research. 2014;54:2467-2477. DOI: 10.1016/j.asr.2013.09.001[44] Vorobjev VI. Synoptic Meteorology. Leningrad: Gidrometeoizdat; 1991 (in Russian) 616 p[45] NASA Earth Observatory. Available from: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov

Galactic Cosmic Rays and Low Clouds: Possible Reasons for Correlation Reversal
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.75428[46] Rossow WB, Walker AW, Beuschel DE, Roiter MD, et al. International Satellite Cloud
Climatology Project (ISCCP): Documentation of New Cloud Datasets. WMO/TD-737.
Geneva: World Meteorological Organization; 1996. 115 p[47] ISCCP: International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project. Available from: https://isccp.
giss.nasa.gov/pub/data/D2CLOUDTYPES/[48] Chernokulsky AV, Mokhov II. Intercomparison of global and zonal cloudiness characteristics from different satellite and ground-based data. Earth’s Research from Space.
2010;3:12-29 (in Russian)[49] Evan AT, Heidinger AK, Vimont DJ. Arguments against a physical long-term trend
in global ISCCP cloud amounts. Geophysical Research Letters. 2007;34:L04701. DOI:
10.1029/2006GL028083[50] Ebisuzaki W. A method to estimate the statistical significance of a correlation when thedata are serially correlated. Journal of Climate. 1997;10:2147-2153. DOI: 10.1175/1520-0442(1997)010<2147:AMTETS>2.0.CO;2[51] Mitchell Jr JM, Stockton CW, Meko DM. Evidence of a 22-year rhythm of drought in
the western United States related to the Hale solar cycle since the 17th century. In:
McCormac BM, Seliga TA, editors. Solar–Terrestrial Influences on Weather and Climate.
New York: D. Reidel; 1979. pp. 125-143. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-009-9428-7[52] Raspopov OM, Dergachev VA, Kolström T. Hale cyclicity of solar activity and its relation
to climate variability. Solar Physics. 2004;224:445-463. DOI: 10.1007/s11207-005-5251-8[53] Veretenenko SV, Dergachev VA, Dmitriev PB. Solar activity and cosmic ray variations asa factor of intensity of cyclonic processes at midlatitudes. Geomagnetism and Aeronomy.
2007;47:375-382. DOI: 10.1134/S0016793207030152[54] Stozhkov YI, Svirzhevsky NS, Bazilevskaya GA, Kvashnin AN, Makhmutov VS,
Svirzhevskaya AK. Long-term (50 years) measurements of cosmic ray fluxes in the atmosphere. Advances in Space Research. 2009;44:1124-1137. DOI: 10.1016/j.asr.2008.10.038[55] Kalnay E, Kanamitsu M, Kistler R, et al. The NCEP/NCAR 40-year reanalysis project.
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. 1996;77:437-472. DOI: 10.1175/1520-0477(1996)077<0437:TNYRP>2.0.CO;2[56] Herman JR, Goldberg RA. Sun, Weather, and Climate. Washington, DC: NASA Scientificand Technical Information Branch; 1978. 360 p[57] Minobe SA. 50-70 year oscillation over the North Pacific and North America. GeophysicalResearch Letters. 1997;24:683-686. DOI: 10.1029/97GL00504[58] Gudkovich ZM, Karklin VP, Smolyanitskii VM, Frolov IE. On the character and causesof the Earth’s climate change.Problems of the Arctic and Antarctic. 2009;81(1):15-23 (inRussian)97

98

Cosmic Rays[59] Baldwin MP, Dunkerton TJ. Stratospheric harbingers of anomalous weather regimes.
Science. 2001;294:581-584. DOI: 10.1126/science.1063315[60] Avdushin SI, Danilov AD. The sun, weather and climate: A present-day view of the
problem (review). Geomagnetism and Aeronomy. 2000;40:545-555[61] Perlwitz J, Graf H-F. Troposphere-stratosphere dynamic coupling under strong andweak polar vortex conditions? Geophysical Research Letters. 2001;28:271-274. DOI: 10.
1029/2000GL012405[62] Ivy DJ, Solomon S, Thompson DW. On the identification of the downward propagation of Arctic stratospheric climate change over recent decades. Journal of Climate.
2004;27:2789-2799. DOI: 10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00445.s1[63] Bazilevskaya GA, Krainev MB, Makhmutov VS. Effects of cosmic rays on the Earth’s
environment. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics. 2000;62:1577-1586.
DOI: 10.1016/S1364-6826(00)00113-9[64] Pruppacher HR, Klett JD. Microphysics of Clouds and Precipitation. 2nd ed. Dordrecht:
Springer; 2010. 954 p. DOI 10.1007/978-0-306-48100-0