全部 标题 作者
关键词 摘要

OALib Journal期刊
ISSN: 2333-9721
费用:99美元

查看量下载量

相关文章

更多...

Solar Modulation of Galactic Cosmic Rays and Its Impact on Global Methane Variability

DOI: 10.4236/acs.2026.163030, PP. 584-599

Keywords: Galactic Cosmic Rays, Atmospheric Methane, Solar Modulation, Neutron Monitor, Correlation, Detrended Analysis, Solar Cycle, Station Dependent Response, Atmospheric Chemistry

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract:

This study investigates the statistical relationship between solar-modulated galactic cosmic ray (GCR) flux and atmospheric methane (CH4) variability across a multi-altitude network of neutron monitor stations over a 20-year period (2006-2025). Monthly GCR intensity data from three stations spanning a broad altitude range: LMKS at Lomnicky ?tít, Slovakia at 2634 m (high altitude), MXCO at Mexico City, Mexico at 2240 m (mid altitude), and OULU at Oulu, Finland at 15 m (low altitude) were correlated with globally averaged atmospheric methane concentrations from the NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory using Pearson and Spearman rank correlation coefficients computed via the SciPy statistical library. Raw correlations were statistically significant at all three stations, with LMKS exhibiting a positive association (r = +0.345, p < 0.001) and MXCO and OULU exhibiting negative associations (r = ?0.389 and r = ?0.442 respectively, while p < 0.001 in each case). However, detrended analysis performed to isolate genuine sub-decadal signals from illusions revealed that the LMKS positive correlation is largely spurious (detrended r = +0.051, p = 0.46), driven by coincident long-term drifts rather than a physical mechanism. The MXCO anti-correlation proved most robust, surviving detrending essentially unchanged (r = ?0.391, p < 0.001) with converging Pearson and Spearman coefficients, providing the strongest evidence of a genuine coupling between cosmic ray variability and methane concentration. GCR flux explains up to approximately 20% of methane variance (at OULU). However, after removing long-term trends to isolate sub-decadal covariability, the maximum robust explained variance is approximately 15% (at MXCO), confirming that anthropogenic emissions remain the dominant control on atmospheric methane while solar modulation constitutes a secondary but statistically detectable influence. These findings highlight the altitude-dependent nature of GCR-atmosphere interactions and underscore the necessity of detrended analysis in solar-climate correlation studies.

References

[1]  Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pirani, A., Connors, S. L., Péan, C., Berger, S., et al. (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2391 p.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/climate-change-2021-the-physical-science-basis/415F29233B8BD19FB55F65E3DC67272B
[2]  Gaisser, T.K. (1982) Cosmic Rays and Particle Physics. Cambridge University Press.
[3]  Usoskin, I.G., Bazilevskaya, G.A. and Kovaltsov, G.A. (2011) Solar Modulation Parameter for Cosmic Rays since 1936 Reconstructed from Ground-Based Neutron Monitors and Ionization Chambers. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 116, A02104.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2010ja016105
[4]  Potgieter, M. (2013) Solar Modulation of Cosmic Rays. Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 10, Article No. 3.
https://doi.org/10.12942/lrsp-2013-3
[5]  Simpson, J.A. (2000) The Cosmic Ray Nucleonic Component: The Invention and Scientific Uses of the Neutron Monitor—(Keynote Lecture). Space Science Reviews, 93, 11-32.
https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1026567706183
[6]  Mironova, I.A., Aplin, K.L., Arnold, F., Bazilevskaya, G.A., Harrison, R.G., Krivolutsky, A.A., et al. (2015) Energetic Particle Influence on the Earth’s Atmosphere. Space Science Reviews, 194, 1-96.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214-015-0185-4
[7]  Loulergue, L., Schilt, A., Spahni, R., Masson-Delmotte, V., Blunier, T., Lemieux, B., et al. (2008) Orbital and Millennial-Scale Features of Atmospheric CH4 over the Past 800,000 Years. Nature, 453, 383-386.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06950
[8]  Lan, X., Dlugokencky, E.J., Mund, J.W., Crotwell, A.M., Crotwell, M.J. and Moglia, E. (2023) Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Dry Air Mole Fractions from the NOAA GML Carbon Cycle Cooperative Global Air Sampling Network.
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/arc/?id=132
[9]  Saunois, M., Stavert, A.R., Poulter, B., Bousquet, P., Canadell, J.G., Jackson, R.B., et al. (2019) The Global Methane Budget 2000-2017. Earth System Science Data, 12, 1561-1623.
https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2019-128
[10]  Kirschke, S., Bousquet, P., Ciais, P., Saunois, M., Canadell, J.G., Dlugokencky, E.J., et al. (2013) Three Decades of Global Methane Sources and Sinks. Nature Geoscience, 6, 813-823.
https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1955
[11]  Levy, H. (1971) Normal Atmosphere: Large Radical and Formaldehyde Concentrations Predicted. Science, 173, 141-143.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.173.3992.141
[12]  Lelieveld, J., Gromov, S., Pozzer, A. and Taraborrelli, D. (2016) Global Tropospheric Hydroxyl Distribution, Budget and Reactivity. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 16, 12477-12493.
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-12477-2016
[13]  Prather, M.J., Holmes, C.D. and Hsu, J. (2012) Reactive Greenhouse Gas Scenarios: Systematic Exploration of Uncertainties and the Role of Atmospheric Chemistry. Geophysical Research Letters, 39, L09803.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2012gl051440
[14]  Atri, D. and Melott, A.L. (2014) Cosmic Rays and Terrestrial Life: A Brief Review. Astroparticle Physics, 53, 186-190.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.astropartphys.2013.03.001
[15]  Bazilevskaya, G.A., Usoskin, I.G., Flückiger, E.O., Harrison, R.G., Desorgher, L., Bütikofer, R., et al. (2008) Cosmic Ray Induced Ion Production in the Atmosphere. Space Science Reviews, 137, 149-173.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214-008-9339-y
[16]  Calisto, M., Usoskin, I., Rozanov, E. and Peter, T. (2011) Influence of Galactic Cosmic Rays on Atmospheric Composition and Dynamics. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 11, 4547-4556.
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-4547-2011
[17]  Kirkby, J., Curtius, J., Almeida, J., Dunne, E., Duplissy, J., Ehrhart, S., et al. (2011) Role of Sulphuric Acid, Ammonia and Galactic Cosmic Rays in Atmospheric Aerosol Nucleation. Nature, 476, 429-433.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10343
[18]  Svensmark, H. (2007) Cosmoclimatology: A New Theory Emerges. Astronomy & Geophysics, 48, 1.18-1.24.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-4004.2007.48118.x
[19]  Svensmark, H., Enghoff, M.B., Shaviv, N.J. and Svensmark, J. (2017) Increased Ionization Supports Growth of Aerosols into Cloud Condensation Nuclei. Nature Communications, 8, Article No. 2199.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-02082-2
[20]  Jackman, C.H., Marsh, D.R., Kinnison, D.E., Mertens, C.J. and Fleming, E.L. (2016) Atmospheric Changes Caused by Galactic Cosmic Rays over the Period 1960–2010. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 16, 5853-5866.
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-5853-2016
[21]  Price, C., Penner, J. and Prather, M. (1997) NOx from Lightning: 1. Global Distribution Based on Lightning Physics. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 102, 5929-5941.
https://doi.org/10.1029/96jd03504
[22]  Pudovkin, M.I. and Raspopov, O.M. (1992) Mechanism of Solar Activity Influence on the Lower Atmosphere and Meteorological Parameters. PIE Proceedings, 2111, 163-179.
[23]  Laken, B.A., Pallé, E., ?alogovi?, J. and Dunne, E.M. (2012) A Cosmic Ray-Climate Link and Cloud Observations. Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate, 2, A18.
https://doi.org/10.1051/swsc/2012018
[24]  Mavromichalaki, H., Papaioannou, A., Plainaki, C., Sarlanis, C., Souvatzoglou, G., Gerontidou, M., et al. (2011) Applications and Usage of the Real-Time Neutron Monitor Database. Advances in Space Research, 47, 2210-2222.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2010.02.019
[25]  Hauke, J. and Kossowski, T. (2011) Comparison of Values of Pearson’s and Spearman’s Correlation Coefficients on the Same Sets of Data. QUAGEO, 30, 87-93.
https://doi.org/10.2478/v10117-011-0021-1
[26]  Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T.E., Haberland, M., Reddy, T., Cournapeau, D., et al. (2020) SciPy 1.0: Fundamental Algorithms for Scientific Computing in Python. Nature Methods, 17, 261-272.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2
[27]  Bretherton, C.S., Widmann, M., Dymnikov, V.P., Wallace, J.M. and Bladé, I. (1999) The Effective Number of Spatial Degrees of Freedom of a Time-Varying Field. Journal of Climate, 12, 1990-2009.
https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(1999)012<1990:tenosd>2.0.co;2

Full-Text

Contact Us

service@oalib.com

QQ:3279437679

WhatsApp +8615387084133