Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 66 (2004) 1683 – 1690

www.elsevier.com/locate/jastp

Modelling the e*ect of an assumed cosmic ray-modulated

global cloud cover on the terrestrial surface temperature
J. Ram-.reza;∗ , B. Mendozaa , V. Mendozab , J. Ademb
a Instituto de Geof sica, UNAM, Ciudad Universitaria, Mexico DF 04510, Mexico
b Centro de Ciencias de la Atmosfera, UNAM, Ciudad Universitaria, Mexico DF 04510, Mexico

Received 7 March 2002; received in revised form 19 September 2002; accepted 10 December 2003

Abstract
We have used the thermodynamic model of the climate to estimate the e*ect of variations in the oceanic cloud cover on the
surface temperature of the Earth in the North Hemisphere (NH) during the period 1984 –1990. We assume that the variations
in the cloud cover are proportional to the variation of the cosmic ray :ux measured during the same period. The results indicate
that the e*ect in the temperature is slightly noticeable when we consider the surface hemispheric temperature on July 1987,
<nding an average temperature anomaly between −0:06◦ C and −0:14◦ C, along a latitudinal band between 20◦ and 40◦ . The
surface temperature averaged globally in the NH presents a decrease of ∼0:01◦ C in average, which is almost the same for
continents and oceans. However, these values are not signi<cant when compared to the overall variability of the time series
with and without forcing.
c 2003 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Keywords: Cloud cover; Cosmic rays; Solar activity; Temperature

1. Introduction Gierens and Ponater (1999) indicated that the <ndings

Recent investigations suggest that the variations of the
cosmic ray :ux could be considered as one of the main
agents that induce important changes in the high and low
atmosphere. Svensmark and Christensen (1997) noticed a
possible connection between the global cloud cover and the
cosmic ray :ux (the correlation coe@cient was higher than
0.9). They carried out a study of the behaviour of these two
parameters using information compiled by the International
Satellite Cloud Climatology Project C2 (ISCCP C2). The
information covers the period between 1984 and 1990, also
it comprises only the oceans and excludes the latitudinal
band of ±22:5◦ , considering that in this area the magnetic
<eld of the Earth inhibits the penetration of cosmic rays, and
therefore the e*ect on the cloud cover is minimised.
∗ Corresponding author. Fax: +52-55-55502486.
E-mail addresses: jramirez@nahuiollin.igeofcu.unam.mx
(J. Ram-.rez), blanca@tonatiuh.igeofcu.unam.mx (B. Mendoza).
of Svensmark and Christensen were only partially correct.
They pointed out that cloud cover variations are signi<-
cantly correlated with cosmic ray :ux variations only on
mid-latitudes in a narrow geomagnetic zone that corresponds
to about 10% of the Earth’s surface, and therefore it is not
acceptable to extrapolate local results to planetary scales.
More recently, Pall-e and Butler (2000) analysed cloud
cover data from ISCCP D2. These data are believed to
be better than the earlier C2 dataset used by Svensmark
and Christensen (1997). In addition, the data correspond
to 1983–1994, being 3 years longer than C2. Furthermore,
they examined the correlation between cloud cover and
cosmic rays :ux in di*erent latitude zones and altitudes.
This study con<rmed the previous results of Svensmark and
Christensen (1997), but after 1991 the total cloud cover
and the cosmic ray :ux diverge. Instead, what they found
is that the low-level clouds for all latitudes excluding the
poles are well correlated with the cosmic ray :ux over the
complete period, with correlation coe@cients of 0.87 for

1364-6826/$ - see front matter
c 2003 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2003.12.003
1684 J. Ram
rez et al. / Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 66 (2004) 1683 – 1690
the whole Earth, 0.72 at the tropics, 0.88 at mid-latitudes
and 0.92 at mid-latitude oceans.
Marsh and Svensmark (2000) also used the ISCCP D2
data <nding that low altitude clouds and cosmic rays are well
correlated (r ¿ 0:6) over ≈15:8% of the Earth’s surface.
When taking the global average cloud anomalies they found
r = 0:63 and 0.92 for the 12-month running mean.
The cosmic rays are registered by neutron monitors lo-
cated on the surface. The lowest energy that can be detected
depends on the geomagnetic latitude, 0:01 GeV in stations
located in the geomagnetic poles up to 15 GeV in the sta-
tions near to the geomagnetic equator. The intensity of the
cosmic rays :ux presents a very well-known inverse rela-
tionship with the sunspot cycle. This is caused by the inter-
planetary magnetic <eld which has a screening e*ect on the
cosmic rays. Cosmic rays are the dominant source of atmo-
spheric ionisation at altitudes between 0 and 35 km with a
maximum at ≈15 km (Dorman, 1974).
Then, we should expect that high altitude and latitude
clouds would be the most a*ected by cosmic rays. How-
ever, the results indicate that low altitude clouds at low lat-
itudes are more in:uenced than higher altitude and latitude
clouds. No satisfactory explanation is at hand, and some
speculations point to the di*erent physical state of the cloud
droplets over the polar (ice clouds) and tropical regions
(liquid clouds) and the e*ect of cosmic rays over them.
One of the mechanisms proposed for the interaction be-
tween cosmic rays and the low atmosphere involves changes
in the rate of ionisation of their compounds. This could
modify microphysics processes such as the nucleation and
growth of cloud particles, and therefore the formation of
the clouds themselves (higher clouds) (Tinsley and Heelis,
1993).
If indeed the cosmic rays can in:uence the nucleation pro-
cesses and in turn a*ect cloud formation, we expect that this
:ux should have an e*ect in the global radiation balance of
the earth–atmosphere system and therefore in the terrestrial
surface temperature <eld.
The purpose of the present work is to estimate the pro-
posed e*ect of the cosmic rays on the surface temperature
through the behaviour of the oceanic cloud cover for the pe-
riod 1984 –1990, when it has been found a good correlation
between total cloud cover and cosmic rays.
2. The model
2.1. The thermodynamic model of climate
The model used here is the thermodynamic model of cli-
mate (TMC) (Adem, 1962), which assumes that the energy
that maintains the atmospheric circulation is the solar radi-
ation, and therefore the fundamental problem is to explain
quantitatively how the transformation of radiant energy in
mechanical energy is carried out.
The model consists of an atmospheric layer of about
10 km of height which includes a uniform and single hor-
izontal cloud layer (the plane-parallel cloud assumption),
an oceanic layer of 100 to 50 m in depth and a continental
layer of negligible depth. It also includes a layer of ice and
snow over the continents and the ocean. The basic equations
are those of hydrostatic balance, perfect gas, continuity and
conservation of thermal energy applied to the atmosphere–
ocean–continent system. A monthly time averaging of the
variables is used. The details of the equations can be found
in Adem et al. (2000).
The TMC converges and is stable (Adem, 1962). The
principal equation for the temperature anomalies is an el-
liptic expression solved as a <nite di*erence equation by
the Liebmannn relaxation method described by Thompson
(1961). In this case, the iterations <nish when the numeric
solution and the theoretical solution have a di*erence of
about 0:001◦ C, which means that the model errors are about
0:001◦ C for all the points in the integration region.
Since this model is basically a thermodynamic model, the
noise level is not signi<cant, which means that the model can
be run with di*erent initial condition and we shall always
obtain the same solution. This is di*erent from the dynamical
models for which the noise is sometimes strong.
The integration of the model equations is carried out for
the North Hemisphere (NH) with the use of a grid with 1917
points, which uses a polar stereographic projection with a
constant grid distance of 408:5 km (Adem et al., 2000). The
integration is carried out only in the NH because the South-
ern Hemisphere has a negligible percentage of continents.
In addition, as the human activity is mostly developed in the
NH, there are more observations.
The TMC is suitable for obtaining hemispheric averages
(20 –90◦ in latitude) of the anomalies of di*erent meteoro-
logical variables. The model also produces monthly, annual
and seasonal predictions. Finally, we choose the TMC be-
cause on the one hand it is a coupled model of the continent–
atmosphere–ocean system that takes into account the
feedback mechanisms inside this system, and on the other
hand, it is relatively easy to manipulate.
2.2. Modelling of the oceanic cloud cover
In the TMC, the single horizontal cloud layer has the lower
boundary at 3 km and the upper boundary at 4:5 km. In a
more realistic situation clouds appear in three di*erent lay-
ers, therefore in order to compensate our approximation, the
radiative parameters in the single layer are the weighted av-
erage values of the radiative parameters in each layer (Adem,
1964). In the present model, typically when the cloud layer
fraction is about 0.5, clouds re:ect ∼25% of the solar ra-
diation, while when the cloud fraction is 1, clouds re:ect
50% back to space. The cloud layer absorbs short-wave ra-
diation from the Sun proportionally to the fraction of the
cloud cover; for example, when the cloud fraction is 0.5, the
clouds absorb only 2% of solar radiation, and when the cloud
fraction is 1, the clouds absorb 4%. The TMC also assumes
that the cloud cover absorbs long-wave terrestrial radiation
 J. Ram
rez et al. / Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 66 (2004) 1683 – 1690
Fig. 1. The solid curve displays a 12-month running average of
the oceanic cloud cover as changes in per cent (ISCCP-2 monthly
data). The data correspond to the area on the oceans covered by
geo-stationary satellites (Svensmark and Christensen, 1997). The
dashed curve is the theoretical <t of the observed data.
as a black body, thus the radiation emitted depends only on
the temperature. More details about the radiative treatment
of the clouds are in Adem (1962). In the TMC, the cloud
cover is introduced as an average normal value plus a frac-
tion which depends on the heat ceded to the troposphere by
the condensation of water vapour in the clouds. This heat is
simulated by empirical functions (Adem, 1964).
In order to incorporate the cosmic ray-modulated clouds
in the present model, we construct a function that depends
only on time and is able to simulate the behaviour of the
cloud cover over oceans; this function is the solid curve in
Fig. 1. The best <t (dashed line in Fig. 1) has the form:
A
N = exp(−2(t − t  )2 =B2 ) +  ; (1)
B(=2)1=2
where N is the change in the cloud cover observed over
oceans (as a percentage), A = 123:2, B = 32:26,  = −1:154,
t  = 30:96 and t is the time in months.
To estimate the goodness of the <t, we made a linear
correlation between the series of experimental data and the
series of theoretical data, <nding a correlation coe@cient
higher than 0.9.
We obtain a radiative forcing of the TMC by coupling
the energy rates added by radiation in the atmospheric and
oceanic layers with Eq. (1), since it represents the contribu-
tion of radiative heating by the cosmic ray-modulated cloud
cover (that is only time dependent) and it is added to the
internally computed cloud cover anomaly.
As the cloud cover (Eq. (1)) used corresponds only to
the oceans, it is introduced in the TMC only in oceans.
However, the change of the oceanic cloud cover should af-
1685
fect also the continental part due to the internal coupling of
the atmosphere–ocean–continent system given by the model
itself.
3. Experiments
Experiment 1: We ran the TMC without the cloud forcing
(control experiment). The results are the dashed lines in
Fig. 2. We obtain the anomalies in the continental surface
temperature (Fig. 2a), in the ocean part (Fig. 2b) and in
the complete hemisphere (Fig. 2c). The model obtains the
anomalies of the monthly average temperature in the NH for
each month along July 1984 to December 1990. In all the
<gures, the thick solid line is the oceanic cloud cover.
Experiment 2: We introduce in the TMC the cosmic
ray-modulated cloud forcing given by Eq. (1). We <nd the
temperature anomalies of the same three regions: continent,
ocean and hemisphere. The pro<les correspond to the thin
solid lines in Figs. 2a–c, respectively. For the ocean and
hemisphere (Figs. 2b and c), we also plotted the observed
temperature anomalies as squares.
Experiment 3: We obtain the di*erences between the con-
tinental temperature anomalies with and without cloud forc-
ing for July 1987. In this date the departures in the oceanic
cloud cover reached the maximum values, as we can see
from Fig. 1. In fact, the dashed line has a peak around July
1987. The result is shown in Fig. 3. To obtain the correct
values the numbers must be divided by 10.
Experiment 4: In this experiment, the model was adapted
to obtain the anomalies of the monthly average temperature
in the region that corresponds to Mexico for the complete
period. In spite of the fact that this region is located in lower
geomagnetic latitudes, it is a*ected due to the atmosphere–
ocean–continent coupling incorporated in the model. The
results appear in Fig. 4.
4. Discussion
4.1. Numerical results without cloud forcing
We can compare the observed temperature anomalies in
the NH with the model results.
We show some statistical parameters of the observed tem-
perature and the model results when radiative forcing is not
introduced. The statistical information is presented in Table
1a. We used a signi<cance level of 95%, i.e. the probability
that the average value is between 0:0236◦ C and 0:0692◦ C
is about 95%.
From Table 1a, we conclude that as the respective statis-
tical parameters are similar, then the numerical results are
close to the observed values.
We also comment on the climate sensitivity factor of the
model without clud forcing, i.e. the ratio between surface
temperature change and radiative forcing. Most studies
1686 J. Ram
rez et al. / Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 66 (2004) 1683 – 1690

using external forcings are concerned with the incom-

ing solar radiation and with the atmospheric composition.
Sensitivity studies compute the increase of the climatic
variables (temperature, humidity, etc.) due to an assumed
increase or decrease of, for instance, 1% in the solar con-
stant (in short, ±1% SC) or an assumed atmospheric CO2
doubling (2 × CO2 ). The solar constant forcings are often
applied to calibrate and compare models. The CO2 doubling
is the common reference level to estimate the anthropogenic
global warming.
The net radiation being the di*erence between the incom-
ing solar or short-wave radiation and the outgoing terres-
trial or long-wave radiation, we de<ne NQ as the increase
of the net radiation at the top of the atmosphere, usually the
tropopause. It is computed as the di*erence between the top
net radiation with and without forcing. Thus, NQ is the ba-
sic measure of the external forcing intensity. The consecu-
tive climate change is measured with NT . The ratio of these
two quantities gives the response of the climate system.
Fig. 2. Monthly anomalies of the surface global average tempera-
ture. The dashed line corresponds to the case with no cloud forcing.
The thin solid line corresponds to the case with cloud forcing (a)
over continents; (b) over oceans, the observations over ocean are
plotted as dotted line and squares; (c) over the NH, the observations
over hemisphere are plotted as dotted line and squares. The thick
solid line represents the variation of the cloud cover over oceans.
Garduño and Adem (1994) used  = NT=NQ as a sensi-
tivity factor to measure the system response. Table 1b shows
the results obtained with the TMC.
More complex models, for example the general circula-
tion models, have response factors of ∼1◦ C W m−2 (Rind
et al., 1999). In comparison, the TMC has a sensitivity fac-
tor which is ∼3 times lower.
4.2. Numerical results with cloud forcing
We now estimate the e*ect of the variations of the cosmic
ray-modulated oceanic cloud cover on the surface terrestrial
temperature. We shall discuss various cases separately.
4.2.1. Continents
The numerical results are shown in Fig. 2a and the sta-
tistical analysis of the results appear in Table 2. Observed
continental temperature anomalies are not available.
From Table 2, we notice that the statistical parameters for
the cloud forcing and no forcing cases are similar, therefore,
the e*ect of the cloud forcing over continent is not signi<-
cant. However, it is important to underline the tendency for
a cooling of the weather when the change in the cloud cover
is positive (see Fig. 2a).
4.2.2. Oceans
In Fig. 2b, we plot the pro<les of temperature anomalies.
In this case, the observed anomalies are available. In Table
3, we present a statistical analysis.
Comparing the statistical parameters in Table 3 we note
that they are very similar, then the e*ect of the cloud forcing
is not signi<cant.
4.2.3. The hemisphere
In Fig. 2c, we have plotted temperature anomalies for the
whole hemisphere. In this case we can also compare our
results with observations. Table 4 shows the statistics.
 J. Ram
rez et al. / Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 66 (2004) 1683 – 1690 1687

Fig. 3. Di*erences between the hemispheric temperature anomalies with cloud forcing and without cloud forcing during July 1987 in a chart
of isothermic lines. To obtain the correct numbers the values must be divided by 10.

In Fig. 3, we have plotted the di*erences between hemi-

Fig. 4. Monthly anomalies of the surface temperature in Mexico.
The dashed line corresponds to the case without cloud forcing. The
thin solid line corresponds to the case with cloud forcing. The thick
solid line represents the variation of the cloud cover over oceans.
Again we observe from Table 4 that the statistical
parameters are similar. However, when there is a positive
increment of the cloud cover over oceans the tendency is
for cooling of the climate (see Fig. 2c).
spheric temperature anomalies obtained with and without
cloud forcing in July 1987 using the same con<dence level
than in the previous cases. We would like to point out that
when we run the model only for a month, spurious noise
is not introduced because the time step in the integration
process is not reduced. We take only the anomalies cor-
responding to July 1987. Fig. 3 shows a latitudinal band
between 20◦ and 40◦ . The temperature anomalies are the
largest in the South Asian part, where we observe tem-
perature anomalies between −0:06◦ C and −0:14◦ C. We
must point out that although these values are almost an or-
der of magnitude higher than for the whole period, they
are not signi<cantly di*erent when compared to the over-
all variations in the series of the control experiments, which
are ∼0:5 K.
These results indicate that in spite of the fact that we do not
observe important e*ects on the global surface temperature,
there are regions where the cosmic ray-modulated cloud
forcing is more noticeable.
Analysing the case of Mexico in Fig. 4 we <nd that from
the beginning of 1986 to the end of 1987, the average of
the absolute values of the di*erences between cloud forcing
and no cloud forcing is about −0:06◦ C, using the same
con<dence level. However, this value is similar to the overall
1688 J. Ram
rez et al. / Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 66 (2004) 1683 – 1690

Table 1

a. Statistical parameters of the TMC for the NH

Statistical parameters Observed values (◦ C) Calculate values without cloud forcing (◦ C) Con<dence interval (95%)

Average 0.0388 0.0464 0.0236 – 0.0692

Typical deviation 0.0701 0.1030 0.0994 – 0.1166
Root mean square error (RMSE) 0.069 0.1019

b. Climate sensitivity factor of the TMC

Forcing NQ (W m−2 ) NT (◦ C)  (◦ C W m−2 )

+1% SC 2.08 0.73 0.35

−1% SC −2:08 −0:73 0.35
2 × CO2 2.79 0.8 0.29

Table 2
Continental statistical parameters

Statistic parameters Calculate values Con<dence inter- Calculate values Con<dence inter-
without cloud val (95%) with cloud forcing val (95%)
forcing (◦ C) (◦ C)

Average 0.0385 0.0146 – 0.0531 0.0341 0.0097– 0.0585

Typical deviation 0.1081 0.0912– 0.125 0.1101 0.0929 – 0.1273
Root mean square error (RMSE) 0.1072 0.1090

Table 3
Oceanic statistical parameters

Statistic parameters Calculate values Con<dence inter- Calculate values Con<dence inter- Observed values
without cloud val (95%) with cloud forcing val (95%)
forcing (◦ C) (◦ C)

Average 0.0538 0.0289 – 0.0787 0.0489 0.0227– 0.0751 0.0679

Typical deviation 0.1123 0.0947– 0.207 0.1182 0.0997– 0.1367 0.1219
Root mean square error (RMSE) 0.1130 0.1170 0.1210

Table 4
Hemispheric statistical parameters

Statistic parameters Calculate values Con<dence inter- Calculate values Con<dence inter- Observed values
without cloud val (95%) with cloud val (95%) (◦ C)
forcing (◦ C) forcing (◦ C)

Average 0.0464 0.0236 – 0.0692 0.0425 0.0185 – 0.0665 0.0388

Typical deviation 0.1030 0.0994 – 0.1166 0.1084 0.0914 – 0.1254 0.0701
Root mean square error (RMSE) 0.1019 0.1078 0.069

variation of both curves (with and without cloud forcing).
In this case, we do not have information to validate our
results with the observations. We would like to stress that
in this case as we merely isolated the region under study,
the spatial size of the integration grid is not reduced and
therefore noise is not introduced.
The fact that negative anomalies in the surface tempera-
ture are present together with a positive change in the vari-
ation of the cloud cover in some speci<cs regions, means
that the e*ect of short-wave solar radiation income dom-
inates slightly over the long-wave radiation in the earth–
atmosphere system.
 J. Ram
rez et al. / Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 66 (2004) 1683 – 1690
Veretenenko and Pudovkin (1999), reported a decrease
in the entrance of solar radiation associated with an increase
in cosmic ray :ux, although their study is restricted to a
latitudinal band of 60 –68◦ north. Pall-e and Butler (2000)
found that an increase of the low-level clouds at periods of
low solar activity (high levels of cosmic rays) diminished
the surface temperature. Our results in Figs. 2–4 indicate that
there is a slight general tendency for cooling over the surface
in all the cases for the period 1984 –1990, which corresponds
to the minimum and ascending phase of the solar cycle.
Moreover, the largest response corresponds to the latitudinal
band of 20 –40◦ , also in agreement with the <ndings of Pall-e
and Butler, of high correlations at mid-latitudes.
We have forced only the oceanic cloud cover, the ocean
has a great thermal inertia and therefore has a small response
to radiative forcing. We can speculate that if the cloud forc-
ing is also present in the continental cloud cover then the re-
sponse in the surface temperature could be stronger because
the continental part is more sensitive.
Furthermore, we suggest that the obtained decrement in
the temperature would be strengthened by an extra e*ect:
the solar radiometers measured a decrease in the total solar
irradiance of 1:3 W m−2 (0.1%) at the top of the terrestrial
atmosphere during the solar minimum of 1986, relative to
the solar maxima of 1980 and 1990 (e.g. Lean, 1997). This
decrease in the solar irradiance induces a climatic forcing
of about 0:22 W m−2 . This e*ect added to the e*ect of the
oceanic cloud forcing proposed here would produce a larger
decrement of the surface temperature of the Earth during
epochs of solar activity minimum.
The space studies (GISS) general circulation model
(GCM) predicts an NH surface temperature change of
0:51◦ C for a 0.25% solar irradiance reduction (Lean and
Rind, 1998). Furthermore, Rind et al. (1999) showed that
an estimated solar forcing increase of ∼0:25% accounts for
a 0:45◦ C temperature increase since 1600 and an increase
of about 0:2◦ C over the past 100 years.
Finally, we must point out that we have worked with a low
sensitivity model; stronger temperature anomalies should be
expected if more sensitive models are used. The present
model gives a lower estimate of the forcing.
4.2.4. Comparisons with other solar forcings
Cosmic rays are not the only proposed mechanism for
solar activity in:uencing the climate. For instance, Soon
et al. (2000) compared the equilibrium climate responses of
a quasi-dynamical energy balance model to radiative forcing
by equivalent changes in CO2 , solar total irradiance and solar
ultraviolet (UV). They found that when the solar constant
is increased by 0.5%, which causes a 1 W m−2 increase in
the net down-going solar radiation at 250 mb, the change
in global surface temperature is about 1:2◦ C. In the case
of solar ultraviolet, a similar forcing produces a change of
∼3◦ C in the global surface temperature. Our low sensitivity
model gives at most changes of −0:14◦ C and only in some
1689
regions. Compared with the UV forcing, the temperature
anomaly is ∼30 times smaller.
5. Conclusions
We estimate the e*ect of a cosmic ray-induced global
cloud cover over oceans on the surface temperature with the
following outcome:
(1) The change observed in the oceanic cloud cover,
which oscillates between 3% and 4%, produces a slight
imbalance in the net :ow of radiation of the atmosphere–
ocean–continent system, implying that the surface tempera-
ture averaged globally (along the period under study) in the
NH presents a decrease ∼0:01◦ C in average. This decrease
is almost the same for continents and oceans. Nevertheless,
this value has the same magnitude as the control experiment,
where the oceanic cloud forcing is not introduced.
(2) The most intense negative anomalies in the hemi-
spheric surface temperature take place during July 1987. In
this period, the maximum departures of the mean value in
the oceanic cloud cover occurred. There is a latitudinal band
from 20◦ to 40◦ where negative temperature anomalies are
between 0:06◦ C and 0:14◦ C, nevertheless, these values are
not signi<cant in comparison with the overall variations of
the time series.
(3) In the region corresponding to Mexico, the di*erence
between cloud forcing and no cloud forcing is in average
∼0:06◦ C. This value is smaller than the overall variation of
the time series with and without cloud forcing.
(4) As the model used here has a low sensitivity factor
(0:35◦ C W m−2 ), the temperature anomalies found should
be considered as lower estimates. Stronger anomalies should
be found with higher sensitivity models.
(5) We conclude that the modulation of the oceanic cloud
cover does not a*ect signi<cantly the surface temperature
of the NH.
References
Adem, J., 1962. On the theory of the general circulation of the
atmosphere. Tellus 14, 102–115.
Adem, J., 1964. On the physical basis for the numerical prediction
of monthly and seasonal temperatures in the troposphere–ocean–
continent systm. Monthly Weather Review 92, 91–104.
Adem, J., Mendoza, V.M., Ruiz, A., Villanueva, E.E., Garduño, R.,
2000. Recent numerical experiments on three-months extended
and seasonal weather prediction with a thermodynamic model.
Atm-osfera 13, 53–83.
Dorman, L.I., 1974. Cosmic Rays. Variations and Space
Exploration. North-Holland, New York.
Garduño, R., Adem, J., 1994. Initial radiative perturbations and
their responses in the Adem thermodinamic model. World
Resource Review 6, 343–349.
Gierens, K., Ponater, M., 1999. Comment on “variation of cosmic
ray :ux and global cloud coverage—a missing link in solar
climate relationship” by H. Svensmark and H. Friis-Christensen
(1997). Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics
61, 795–797.
1690 J. Ram
rez et al. / Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 66 (2004) 1683 – 1690
Lean, J., 1997. The Sun’s radiation and its relevance for Earth.
Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 35, 33–67.
Lean, J., Rind, D., 1998. Climate forcing by changing solar
radiation. Journal of Climate 11, 3069–3093.
Marsh, N.D., Svensmark, H., 2000. Low cloud properties
in:uenced by cosmic rays. Physical Review Letters 85, 5004.
Pall-e, E., Butler, C.J., 2000. The in:uence of cosmic rays
on terrestrial clouds and global warming. Astronomy and
Geophysics 41, 418–422.
Rind, D., Lean, J., Healy, R., 1999. Simulate time-dependent
climate response to solar radiative forcing since 1600. Journal
of Geophysical Research 104, 1973–1990.
Soon, W., Posmienter, E., Baliunas, S., 2000. Climate hyper-
sensitivity to solar forcing? Annales Geophysicae 18, 583–588.
Svensmark, H., Christensen, E.F., 1997. Variation of Cosmic
Ray Flux and Global cloud Coverage—A missing Link
in Solar-Climate Relationships. Journal of Atmospheric and
Solar-Terrestrial Physics 59, 1225.
Thompson, P.D., 1961. Numerical Weather Analysis and
Prediction. Macmillan, New York.
Tinsley, B., Heelis, R.A., 1993. Correlations of atmospheric
dynamics with solar activity: evidence for a connection via the
solar wind, atmospheric electricity, and cloud micro-physics.
Journal of Geophysical Research 98, 10375.
Veretenenko, S.V., Pudovkin, M.L., 1999. Variation of solar
radiation input to the lower atmosphere associated with
di*erent heliogeophysical factors. Journal of Atmospheric and
Solar-Terrestrial Physics 61, 521–529.