Herald1303001 avakyankor

ISSN 1019�3316, Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2013, Vol. 83, No. 3, pp. 275–285. © Pleiades Publishing, Ltd., 2013.Original Russian Text © S.V. Avakyan, 2013, published in Vestnik Rossiiskoi Akademii Nauk, 2013, Vol. 83, No. 5, pp. 425–436.

275

More than 40 years ago, in the fall of 1972, the firstAll�Union conference “Solar–Atmospheric Correla�tions in Climate Theory and Weather Forecasts” washeld in Moscow. It adopted a resolution that formu�lated still topical problems and objectives. The confer�ence stated [1, p. 463],

Studies on the Sun–atmosphere problem, whichhave been performed in the Soviet Union and abroadfor several decades, make it possible to regard asproved the existence of a considerable influence ofsolar activity and other cosmic and geophysical fac�tors on atmospheric processes. Consequently, studieson this problem are of high practical significance ….

In May 1973, the Hydrometeorological ServiceHeadquarters organized the Scientific Council onSolar–Atmospheric Correlations in Weather Fore�casts; before this, the Laboratory of Solar–TerrestrialCorrelations at the Hydrometeorological Center wasopened. However, it is becoming obvious that the thennatural science was short of the necessary data aboutthe environment. Moreover, meteorologists and cli�matologists were not prepared for taking into accountsolar activity.

Today the scientific world enjoys a significantlylarger reserve of knowledge about the nature andintensity of solar–geomagnetic disturbances and theirmanifestations in the environment, including the bio�sphere and human beings. On the other hand, theproblem of the global increase in the mean surfacetemperature and the concentration of carbon dioxide(CO2) in the lower atmosphere, which is believed to bethe main source of the greenhouse effect, has been dis�cussed at all levels for more than two decades. In 2004,our country ratified the Kyoto Protocol, designed todecrease emissions of greenhouse gases, includingCO2, but suspended its participation in the protocol’srealization not long ago. The point is that the switch ofworld powers first to decreasing the use of fossil fuel

and then to carbon�free energy within the frameworkof the Kyoto Protocol may lead to economic collapsefor Russia as a consequence of the reduction and,probably, even loss of the possibility to sell oil and nat�ural gas on the world market. The basis for this con�cern is that our most important industries (defense,aerospace, heavy engineering) have been in crisis fordecades.

THE IONOSPHERE AS A CURRENT SOLAR ACTIVITY SIGNAL GENERATOR

The modern science of climatology gives no answersufficiently accurate and reliable for practical applica�tions to the question of what the main cause of the cur�rent climate warming is and of how this process willdevelop in the near future. To date, the main difficultyhas been to assess the role of variations in solar activity.As a rule, all attempts to account for the contributionof solar–cosmic factors to the external impact on theweather–climate system are reduced to consideringvariations in the full flux of solar radiant energy or cos�mic rays. However, the changes in both are very insig�nificant.

It is worth recalling in this respect the constantvalue of the main part of the Sun’s radiant energy flux(this value is called the solar constant) coming to thelower atmosphere, the troposphere. This flux is now342 W m–2 with account for the Earth’s sphericity.According to the current assumptions, changes in thesolar constant value outside the atmosphere duringboth the 11�year cycle of solar activity and secularvariations do not exceed 0.1% (at least, for the last300 years).

In studying the contribution of solar activity toweather and climate change, we proposed to accountfor well�known variations in electromagnetic radiationin the most shortwave and changeable part of the spec�trum—the extreme ultraviolet (EUV) and X�rayranges. These variations are accompanied by distur�bances in geomagnetic activity associated with cor�puscular solar activity, under which electron and pro�

Environmental Problems

The author associates the recently observed climate warming and carbon dioxide concentration growth in thelower atmospheric layers with variations of solar–geomagnetic activity in global cloud formation and the sig�nificant decrease in the role of forests in carbon dioxide accumulation in the process of photosynthesis. Thecontribution of the greenhouse effect of carbon�bearing gases to global warming turns out to be insignificant.

DOI: 10.1134/S1019331613030015

The Role of Solar Activity in Global WarmingS. V. Avakyan*

* Sergei Vazgenovich Avakyan, Dr. Sci. (Phys.–Math.), is head ofthe Laboratory of Aerospace Physical Optics at the Vavilov StateOptical Institute and a leading researcher of the RAS Chief(Pulkovo) Astronomical Observatory.

276

HERALD OF THE RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES Vol. 83 No. 3 2013

AVAKYAN

ton fluxes, coming from the Earth’s radiation belts,penetrate the ionosphere. However, the stumblingstone for the Sun–weather–climate problem was theabsence of a mechanism that would explain how theenergy of solar impacts on the upper atmosphere(Earth’s ionosphere at heights of 60–500 km), whereboth solar shortwave radiation and the fluxes of cor�puscles from the radiation belts were fully absorbed,could manifest itself in the troposphere, i.e., in itsweather–climatic characteristics.

Upon proposing such a mechanism, we were ableto consider as the basis for solar variability impacts onweather–climatic characteristics the ionizing radia�tion of solar flares and corpuscular precipitationsunder geomagnetic disturbances rather than cosmicrays, both galactic (GCRs) and solar (SCRs). In fact,these factors of solar–geomagnetic activity—flaresand geomagnetic storms—prevail both by energy and,what is more important, by recurrence. Indeed, up to50 solar flares of the M5 class and higher and 20–70geomagnetic storms with Кр = 6 and more occur(depending on the phase of the 11�year solar cycle)yearly on average. At the same time, a GCR decreaseis observed several times a year at a level of less than 3%and once a year at a level of 20%, while SCRs are reg�istered in the earth’s orbit five times a year on averageas a proton flux emerges with an energy higher than100 MeV.

All the fluxes that change considerably dependingon the level of solar–geomagnetic activity and ionizethe earth’s upper atmosphere lose their energy in theionosphere, bringing it into a state of high excitation.Then, if there is a channel transmitting this excitationdirectly to the troposphere, where the weather and cli�mate are formed, significant correlations of meteoro�logical characteristics with solar activity factors mustbe present, including global climatic changes.

The purpose of our research was to determine therole of the Sun’s influence on the global warming of thesurface air, already observable for more than 35 years.There is still no convincing evidence of anthropogenicimpact on the current climate change. However, suchstudies have always encountered two formidable barri�ers. First, in discussing energy problems of the solar–magnetospheric impact on weather–climatic charac�teristics, scientists usually emphasize the necessity tolook for indirect or trigger mechanisms that transmitthe effects of variations in solar–geomagnetic activityto the troposphere to obtain meteorologically signifi�cant changes in it. The point is that the energy of anychangeable part of the solar spectrum is very small rel�ative to the mean energy of atmospheric formations(for example, a cyclone). Second, as was mentioned,all the most significant energy fluxes coming from solarflares and occurring during geomagnetic storms fullydissipate in the earth’s ionosphere. This is why weshould view the earth’s ionosphere as the most natural

and effective element of the indirect mechanism ofsolar–atmospheric correlations.

Earlier, we showed the substantial role of the iono�sphere in heliogeobiocorrelations [2] owing to theintroduction of a new agent of solar–terrestrial corre�lations—ionospheric microwave radiation—whichemerges in transitions between highly excited (Ryd�berg) states of all ionospheric components. The studieswere based on the experience of modeling disturbancesin the ionosphere under the action of solar flares andelectron precipitation from radiation belts during geo�magnetic storms and under various artificial impacts.

These disturbances manifest themselves whenrecording the degree of ionization of the upper atmo�sphere by the radio sounding method and during opti�cal studies, including visual–instrumental observa�tions of ionospheric glow from manned space vehicles.To construct more accurate and advanced models ofionospheric disturbances, we were the first to intro�duce in aeronomy the following three high thresholdenergy processes, known from the physics of atomiccollisions: the Auger effect; the double photoioniza�tion of the outer electron shell; and the excitation ofhighly excited (Rydberg) states by the impact of ener�getic ionospheric electrons—photoelectrons, second�ary electrons, and Auger electrons. The role of theseprocesses under solar flares and magnetic stormssharply increases because of the hardening of the spec�tra of the flux of quanta and electrons that ionize theupper atmosphere.

THE RADIO OPTICAL THREE�STEP TRIGGER MECHANISM OF SOLAR–TROPOSPHERIC

CORRELATIONS

It is stressed in [3] that the change in solar radiationas a climate�forming factor requires special attention,although we are still far from understanding possiblemechanisms that strengthen the influence of solaractivity on the climate. More and more experimentalevidence appears daily to prove the connection ofheliogeophysical factors with weather–climatic phe�nomena, including hazardous ones, such as hurri�canes. As the main cause of weather changes in thelower atmosphere, we consider the condensationmechanism, including the important contribution ofmicrowave radiation caused by high solar activity inthe form of shortwave flares and radio bursts. This isbased on experimental facts concerning the impact ofmicrowave radiation on the condensation mechanism[4, 5]: by observing variations in the atmosphere’soptical transparency and a number of weather charac�teristics from a high�altitude observatory, it was dis�covered that they were connected with solar micro�wave radiation bursts and, what was even more impor�tant, with solar flares themselves. It was establishedthat such impacts resulted in the formation of waterclusters, owing to which cluster absorption bands


THE ROLE OF SOLAR ACTIVITY IN GLOBAL WARMING 277

emerged and deepened in the near ultraviolet region ofwavelengths, and the spectral optical atmosphericdepth decreased in the visible and IR regions (as wellas in the absorption bands of water vapors).

On the other hand, the Radiophysical ResearchInstitute in Nizhni Novgorod registered sporadic risesin the intensity of ionospheric microwave radiationduring solar flares and auroras (during geomagneticstorms and substorms) [6]. Note that the intensity dur�ing the flares exceeded many times the typical micro�wave bursts of solar origin. The nature of such a signal(radiation in dipole transitions between highlyexcited—Rydberg—levels with the principal quan�tum number n ~ 10–20 and with orbital quantumnumber change to 1) was disclosed in our works of themid�1990s [7]. In 2002, the important role of this“Rydberg” mechanism of microwave generation bythe disturbed ionosphere was confirmed experimen�tally for the first time at the Radiophysical ResearchInstitute on the Sura heating bench (under radio waveabsorption at frequencies of 4.7–6.8 MHz), when theobserved microwave radiation of the ionosphere at afrequency of 600 MHz [8] was interpreted physicallyand fully on the basis of our work [7].

These results made it possible to propose aradiooptical three�step trigger mechanism of solar–magnetospheric control over weather–climatic phe�nomena [9]. This mechanism makes it possible toaccount for the contribution of variations in the solarflux of ionizing radiation in EUV and X�ray ranges, aswell as during solar flares, and the contribution of cor�puscular fluxes from radiation belts and directly fromthe magnetosphere under geomagnetic disturbances,as well as during geomagnetic storms. According toour estimates, the flux of microwaves from the iono�sphere may reach 10–11 W cm–2 during a strong mag�netic storm, while being 10–100 times lower duringsolar flares.

When we study the possibility of the radioopticalmechanism’s contribution to the current climatechange, we pay attention in the first place to the globalwarming of the surface air, observed over the last sev�eral decades. One of V.I. Vernadsky’s basic theses istaken into account here [10, p. 95]:

The main and decisive part of scientific knowledge isfacts and their major and minor empirical generali�zations. Scientific theories and hypotheses, despitetheir importance in current scientific work, arebeyond the scope of the main and decisive part of sci�entific knowledge. The main importance of hypoth�eses and theories is but appearance.

Figure 1 shows a diagram of the radiooptical triggermechanism. Note that the first part of the termradiooptical implies introducing in ionosphere physicsa new (“Rydberg”) mechanism of generating radioradiation of the Earth’s ionosphere in the microwaverange (wavelengths expressed in millimeters, centime�

ters, and decimeters), disturbed under the action ofthe ionizing radiation of a flare on the Sun or by elec�trons precipitating into the ionosphere during mag�netic storms (auroras). The “optical” part of themechanism is connected with accounting for theimpact of both flares on the Sun and solar microwaveradio bursts on the content of water vapors in theatmospheric column. This phenomenon was discov�ered in the 1980s during high�altitude observations (ata height of 2.1 km near Kislovodsk) by associates of theAtmospheric Physics Department of Leningrad StateUniversity under the supervision of AcademicianK.Ya. Kondrat’ev [4, 5]. The authors interpreted theseobservations as the actuation of a condensation–clus�ter mechanism with the formation of cluster com�plexes from water vapors. This was confirmed byrecording the emerging and deepening cluster absorp�tion bands in the area of wavelengths of 320–330, 360,380–390, 410, and 480 nm.

In interpreting the data of laboratory experimentswith clusters from water vapors and carbon dioxide, aswell as in the area of atmospheric densities, “colli�sional dissociative recombination” was proposed asthe main process of cluster ion breakdown in the pres�ence of molecular gas [11]. It was shown that the dis�sociation rate coefficients largely depended on thevalue of the orbital moment l of the Rydberg level dur�ing collision: the probability of dissociation increasesfor low l values and, correspondingly, it becomes low atlarge l values. Consequently, during solar radiationbursts and, even more so, during sporadic rises in theintensity of the ionosphere’s microwave Rydberg radi�ation (during solar UV and X�ray flares and geomag�netic storms), we will observe the filling of Rydberglevels with higher l values in the process of “collisionaldissociative recombination,” induced by the absorp�tion of the strengthened microwave radiation flux,and, as a result, a decrease in the probability of the dis�sociation of cluster ions of the lower atmosphere.

Stage I

Stage II

Stage III

Transformation of the ionosphericsolar and geomagnetic energyfactors into a microwave flux

that penetratesEarth’s surface

Regulating the formation anddestruction of cluster ions

by microwave radiation

Participation of clustersin the formation of cloud

and aerosol layers that reflect andabsorb the Sun’s radiant energy

flux and heat flux from the underlying surface

Fig. 1. General diagram of the radiooptical three�step trig�ger effect of solar–geomagnetic factors on troposphericcharacteristics.

278


AVAKYAN

Thus, a new role of microwave radiation is suggested inmicroprocesses in the Earth’s lower atmosphere withthe participation of water cluster ions: the influence onthe probability of these clusters' dissociation throughthe “collisional dissociative recombination” mecha�nism ensuring the emergence of high Rydberg electronstate orbital quantum number values (emerging underthe absorption of microwave radiation quanta of boththe Sun and the ionosphere). Dissociation rate coeffi�cients depend on the energy of quanta (and, conse�quently, on the wavelength) of the absorbed microwaveradiation. This leads to the deceleration of the rate ofthe primary reaction of cluster ion destruction and, asa consequence, to an increase in their concentrationin the troposphere.

Proceeding from [4, 5], as well as from studies thatconfirm the important role of highly excited (Ryd�berg) states in the processes of association of largemolecules and clusters and the dissociative recombi�nation of cluster ions [for example, 11], we may statethat the microwave flux prompts a growing concentra�tion of water vapor clusters in the troposphere, whichis accompanied by the formation of optically thinclouds (initially, condensation haze).

Let us stress that all the steps of the proposedmechanism are confirmed experimentally: iono�spheric microwave radiation, amplified during solarflares and magnetic storms, was discovered [6]; thecore role of the Rydberg mechanism of microwaveionospheric radiation was proved by direct radiophys�ical active impacts on the Earth’s ionosphere indomestic experiments by scientists at the Radiophysi�cal Research Institute on the Sura heating bench [8];humidity regulation at altitudes higher than 2 km byboth solar radiation and solar flares [4, 5] was proved;and the direct influence of solar flares and magneticstorms on overcast weather was clearly fixed [12].

The cloud cover generated anew after solar flaresand geomagnetic storms is in its initial form a mediumtransmitting more than 90% of the incoming solarradiation flux. However, it intercepts about half of thethermal radiation going to space from the underlyingsurface. This is why such optically thin clouds arewarming. Their increased formation after flares on theSun and global magnetic storms (and, on the whole, inperiods of high solar–geomagnetic activity), accord�ing to the radiooptical mechanism, is the main causeof the current global warming, connected with theepoch of the maxima of secular (quasi�centenary andquasi�bicentenary) cycles of heliogeophysical activity.

A good confirmation of the correctness of thisapproach is data of the UW HIRAS satellite experi�ment, during which, during the centenary maximumof solar activity (measured in 1979–2001), a 10–15%increased overcast content compared to all other satel�lite experiments was registered (because the HIRASequipment can additionally record semitransparent

cirrus clouds). Earlier, in [13] the necessity to studyoptically thin cirrus clouds was emphasized, especially“thin and invisible cirrus clouds” and primarily in theliquid–drop fraction because it was at this stage thatthe cloud layer caused a substantial warming of thesubcloud layer of the atmosphere. In compliance withthe radiooptical mechanism, such cloud generationsare preceded by the formation of a practically invisiblecondensation haze under the clusterization of watervapors in the field of microwaves from the ionosphereduring solar flares and magnetic storms.

The proposed mechanism of the emergence ofincipient, optically thin, and actually cirrus, cloudi�ness during solar flares and geomagnetic storms allowsus to outline the vectors of powerful effects of solar–geomagnetic activity on cyclogenesis. Indeed, accord�ing to [14], specifying in simulation models the pres�ence of cirrus clouds with an area of about 1.2 ×1.2 km, for example, in the wake of an anticyclone,reduces most strongly (up to 2 hPa) the surface atmo�spheric pressure and, above all, shifts its further trajec�tory. This is what happens in the middle latitudes,while, for the subarctic zone, the largest impact onsuch a change in the path of an anticyclone is causedby the emergence of cirrus clouds in the center and inthe frontal part of the anticyclone. To change theatmosphere’s circulation regime associated with thegeneration of the kinetic energy of atmosphericmotions, it is necessary to spend 2.5–5 W m–2 [14].Thus, with the emergence of optically thin cloudiness,we observe changes not only in the radio–thermalregime (owing to the warming properties of this cloud�iness) but also in the dynamics of the atmosphere(characteristics of cyclones and anticyclones).

CAUSES OF THE MODERN GLOBAL WARMING

Obviously, to confirm the importance of the mech�anism of solar–tropospheric correlations, it is neces�sary to explain the observed dependence of weather–climatic effects on the Sun’s cyclic activity. Meteorol�ogists, as well as some geophysicists, study the correla�tions of weather–climatic characteristics with the uni�versally recognized solar activity parameters—Wolfnumbers (associated with sunspot formation activity)and with temporal variations of the total electromag�netic solar radiation flux—the solar constant. Theresult turns out to be negative: there are no significantcorrelations with meteorological parameters either inWolf numbers or in the variability of the solar constant.This gave grounds for a skeptical attitude to the possi�ble influence of solar–geomagnetic activity factors onweather and climate [15].

Indeed, in studying the correlation of surface airtemperature (in Moscow, Leningrad, and Oslo) withWolf numbers, it was obtained that temperature does



not oscillate with a period of 11 years—the main solaractivity cycle; instead, stable variations were observedin a range of 2–5.5 years [15]. However, within theradiooptical three�step trigger mechanism, this resultis quite understandable: an increase in the warming(optically thin) cloudiness takes place owing to theincreased flux of microwaves from the ionosphere bothunder the action of solar flares and during magneticstorms. The 11�year cycle has two maxima of the prob�ability of such flares and two maxima of the probabilityof such storms, and, as a rule, they do not coincide[16]. As a result, over 11 years, two very powerfulmicrowave impacts on the content of water vapor inthe troposphere (with cluster coagulation) take place:during magnetic storms and, usually less intensive,during solar flares, primarily within intervals betweenthe maxima of geomagnetic storms. This explains thespread of the periods from 2 to 5.5 years in the temper�ature maxima observed in Moscow, Leningrad, andOslo [15, 17].

A result important for year�to�year variations ofhydrological processes was obtained in [18], which, inparticular, specified the same 2� to 4�year quasi�periodamong those associated by the authors with the gravi�tational effect of the Jupiter–Venus pair. Note thatperiods in the 2� to 6�year range for precipitation inOslo manifest themselves in the data of an earlier work[17] as well. To all appearances, we should seek thechannels of the influence of solar–geomagnetic cyclicactivity on hydrological processes within the radioop�tical mechanism primarily with account for the effectof precipitation stimulated from lower clouds underthe emergence of optically thin clouds after flares andmagnetic storms. As was shown in [14], an analog ofsuch clouds, cirrus clouds, may “seed” lower cloudswith their crystals and cause precipitation.

As is known, in addition to the 11�year cycle ofsolar activity, there are longer cycles. We substantiatedthe decisive influence of secular cycles of solar–geo�magnetic activity on the global rise in surface air tem�perature (global warming) observed over the last sev�eral decades [19]. We managed to do this on the basisof the concept of the radiooptical three�step triggermechanism. We analyzed, first, the trends in the mainindices of solar and geomagnetic activity and, second,the experimental results of the global distribution ofthe full (total) cloudiness, obtained from satellitesstarting from the first half of the 1980s. It turned outthat all key effects of the total secular cycle of solar–geomagnetic activity were reflected in the behavior ofglobal cloudiness (Fig. 2). For example, the globalcloudiness maximum in 1985–1987 fell on the secularmaximum of the Sun’s electromagnetic (1985) andcorpuscular (1987) activity [20], while the secondmaximum (late 2003) coincided with the absolutemaximum of geomagnetic activity (the number ofgeomagnetic storms) over the entire observation

period (more than 100 years). It is clear from Fig. 2that the decrease in the global spread of cloudinessafter 1987 and 2003 is in full accord, due to the actionof the radiooptical mechanism, with the decrease inthe Sun’s activity, by the flux in the soft X�ray andextreme ultraviolet ranges starting from 1985 (Figs. 3[21] and 4 [22]), and that in geomagnetic storm activ�ity is by the flux of electrons precipitating from radia�tion belts starting from 2004 (Fig. 5).

Indeed, the decrease in these fluxes reduces theintensity of the ionosphere’s microwave radiation and,consequently, slows down the condensation–clusterprocess in the troposphere, i.e., cloud generation. Thisis confirmed by the growth of the water vapor contentin the troposphere column, registered in 1986–1999[23]. Starting from 1999–2000, this value begandecreasing again, while the global cloudiness begangrowing. Importantly, the data of [24] about the rela�tion between the lower cloudiness and the uppercloudiness plus the middle ones over the period from2000 through 2004, when the number of geomagneticstorms was growing up to the absolute secular maxi�mum (Fig. 5), show a sharp (two�time) increase in thecontribution of clouds of the upper and middle levelsto the total cloudiness compared to the 1985–1999period, which is again in full compliance with theincrease in the contribution of the radiooptical mech�anism to the transformation of water vapors into clus�ters under the action of the increased flux of micro�waves from the ionosphere. Consequently, in theabsence of direct measurement results of the opticalthickness of the global cloudiness, the data about thepermanent excess of the upper–middle cloudinessover the lower one may be viewed as evidence that thereduction of the total global cloudiness, registeredstarting from 1987, is primarily determined by thedecrease in the number of optically thin (warming)clouds, which determines the decrease in the contri�bution of solar–geomagnetic activity effects to thesurface air warming.

However, it was from 1985–1986 when we observedthe considerable increase in the flux of long�wave radi�ation, going to space from the atmosphere and theunderlying surface [25]. Within the concept of theradiooptical mechanism, this confirms the reductionof the optically thin cloudiness, which confines wellthe Earth’s thermal radiation but almost freely trans�mits the principal flux of solar radiant energy. This dif�ferentiates it from thick clouds, which confine visibleand shortwave radiation coming to the Earth’s tropo�sphere and surface. This is why the daytime thickcloudiness is cooling.

In [25] we find the following data on the energyevolution of the Earth’s general radiation balancebetween 1985 and 2003: overall, the growth of outgo�ing longwave radiation (OLR) over this period was~15 W m–2, and the outgoing shortwave radiation

280


AVAKYAN

(OSR) decreased by ~10 W m–2. This agrees with ourestimation of the impact of the radiooptical mecha�nism. Indeed, the decrease in overcast skies from themaximum of solar activity in 1985–1987 through2000 was 4–5% (see Fig. 1). At a mean cloud albedoof 0.5–0.8 and taking into account the Earth’s sphe�ricity, 342 W m–2 × (0.04–0.05) × (0.5–0.8) = 6.8–13.7 W m⎯2. This is a forecast value by which the valueof the outgoing shortwave radiation is reduced. Onaverage, it is just ~10 W m–2, which agrees with the

results of satellite data analysis performed in [25].Therefore, the anomalous growth of the outgoinglongwave radiation indicates, in our opinion (in linewith the radiooptical mechanism), not a stable globalwarming, as the author wrote in [25], but, on the con�trary, a sharp drop in the contribution of the opticallythin cloudiness (which keeps the lower layers of thetroposphere) and, consequently, a reduced role of thesecular maximum of solar activity to the warmingeffect.

71

70

69

68

67

66

65

64

63

Cloudiness, %

R

1

2

3 4

TSI

Dec

embe

r 20

09

15/0

7/83

15/0

7/84

15/0

7/85

15/0

7/86

15/0

7/87

15/0

7/88

15/0

7/89

15/0

7/90

15/0

7/91

15/0

7/92

15/0

7/93

15/0

7/94

15/0

7/95

15/0

7/96

15/0

7/97

15/0

7/98

15/0

7/99

15/0

7/00

15/0

7/01

15/0

7/02

15/0

7/03

15/0

7/04

15/0

7/05

15/0

7/06

15/0

7/07

15/0

7/08

15/0

7/09

15/0

7/10

Fig. 2. Remotely sensed changes in the area of global full (summary) cloudiness [http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/climanal7.html].The upper curve is the current course of the solar constant, or the total solar irradiance (TSI). The middle curve is the averagedmonthly number of sunspots (R). The lower graph shows monthly averages; the proposed linear approximation in four time inter�vals confirms the influence of secular trends in individual factors of solar–geomagnetic activity: the EUV flux and the Sun’s softX�ray radiation, the number of X�ray flares, the number of geomagnetic storms, and the impact of their joint reduction after 2003:(1) the period from 1983 to 1985–1987: growing cloudiness owing to the increasing shortwave activity of the Sun and geomagneticactivity (the number of global magnetic storms); (2) the period from 1987 to 2000: the decrease in the Sun’s EUV radiation fluxand the number of solar flares; (3) the period from 2000 to 2003: geomagnetic activity growth until the end of 2003; (4) the periodfrom 2004: the general drop in the number of global magnetic storms and solar shortwave electromagnetic activity.

1

01980

mW m−2

Sun’s EUV radiation flux

1985 1990 20001995

2

3

4

5

6

Fig. 3. Changes in the current flux of the Sun’s ionizingextreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation in 1976–2003.

10

01980

Flares

≥ M4

1985 1990 20001995

20

30

Fig. 4. Time variations in the number of solar X�ray flaresof ≥M4 observed per month in 1975–2003.



We should stress that the analysis of the results ofperennial ground�based measurements of the value ofsolar radiation that came through the Earth’s atmo�sphere allows us to speak not only about its minimumin 1985 but also about the presence (although with ahigh degree of uncertainty) of a negative centenarytrend in its value practically since 1900 [22]. However,this also agrees qualitatively with the secular course ofsolar–geomagnetic activity. If we consider indirectdata as well, then, strictly speaking, warming hasalready been observed for 300 years, following thegrowth of solar activity since the beginning of the 17thcentury.

Recent years have seen a change in the direction ofanother cosmophysical influence on climate—theintensity of the GCRs. The galactic cosmic rays canactively participate in the formation of optically thickclouds of the lower layer, which, as a rule, lead to thecooling of the surface air. Therefore, GCR growth leadsto an increase in cooling cloudiness, and, consequently,this process takes part in the weakening of global warm�ing [16, 19]. The growth of intensity of cosmic rays hasalready been observed since about 1999–2000, the lastsolar maximum (Fig. 6), although until then their fluxwas decreasing throughout the 20th century.

Thus, several trends observed in the past decademay indicate the near end of the period characterizedby the contribution of the natural, solar, component toglobal climate warming [16].

Modern science still does not allow us to forecastwith practical accuracy the rate of the coming cooling.This is due to problems with knowledge about the vari�ability mechanisms of solar activity. However, the main

point is that it is assumed that the heat accumulated bythe World Ocean may play a crucial role in the temporaldelays of climate variations. The ocean largely affectsthe atmosphere owing to the latter’s relatively smallheat capacity and therefore can hold back the temper�ature drop in the surface air by 15–18 years [26].

We have considered the role of a certain initial con�dition—the presence of optically dense cloudiness—when solar flares and geomagnetic storms affectweather–climate characteristics [27]. This is a wide�spread phenomenon in high and medium latitudes,especially if we keep in mind that we are speakingabout densities only slightly exceeding one. The effectof solar flares and geomagnetic storms on the weatheris strongly leveled down during such periods in a givenregion since the genesis of a new thin cloudiness isunnoticeable: the total heat�radiation balance isdetermined (for the ground air) by the optically thickcloud cover. The distribution of this cover is oftenlargely related to the nature of the underlying surfaceand orography, which is recorded well from space dur�ing visual instrumental observations. On the nightside,the whole cloud cover, in fact, slows down the coolingof the ground air layer. This is what probably leads tostill poorly understood [3] effects of global climatechange, such as the preemptive warming of wintersand the prevalence (twofold!) of the growth rates ofnightly (minimal) temperatures of the ground air overdaytime (maximal) temperatures.

The modern climate is surely affected by humanactivity. The main cause of the growing climate insta�bility is the anthropogenic transformation of theGreen Earth into the Gray Earth due to the progress�

1

10

1885

Mag

net

ic s

torm

s

1865

5

0

100

1870 2010

150

0

1875 1895 1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005

20

30

40

50

60

70

15

25

35

45

55

65

75200

50

1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

2423222120191817161514131211

1

Fig. 5. Smoothed monthly numbers of sunspots (upper curve 1), ordinal numbers of 11�year cycles from 11th to 24th, and theannual number of magnetic storms (histogram) [http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/education/earthmag.html].

282


AVAKYAN

ing abiotization of dry land [28]. The notion GrayEarth means, among other things, that only half of theforests remain (according to the UN EnvironmentalProgram (UNEP), their area will decrease by another17% by 2050); by the mid�1970s, human interferencereduced the dry land phytomass by 41.5%; by thebeginning of the 21st century, the critical point of 50%has been passed; and there are forecasts that, in thisdecade, less than two�fifths of the natural phytomasswill be left on dry land. The Green Earth used to spendalmost 10% of the radiation balance on the biologicalcycle on dry land, and now, it is 4%; that is, 6.3 W m–2

was released (to the external branch of the geologicalcycle) outside of the biological cycle. This additionalheating of the utilized dry land with a thermal flux of6.3 W m–2, which passes from the biocycle to the exter�nal branch of the geocycle, happens wherever abiotiza�tion has reduced the evaporation potential [28].

Indeed, more than 99% of the planetary phytomassis concentrated on dry land. Heat fluxes and surfacetemperatures grow owing to active degradation pro�cesses on territories under development, such asexpanding deforestation, desertification, urbaniza�tion, the laying of communications and roads, andmining. According to contemporary concepts, themost likely way of reducing carbon emission into theatmosphere is depositing it in forest vegetationthrough reforestation. The main part (up to 75%) ofcarbon accumulated in living nature falls on forestecosystems [29], but we should note that carbon accu�mulation through photosynthesis is effective only inrelatively young boreal forests, since it takes 100 yearson average to occur.

In [28] attention is drawn to another discrepancybetween the observed features of contemporary warm�ing and the greenhouse hypothesis. Indeed, the maingreenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmosphere is watervapors, but their content drops rapidly with height,where temperature also drops sharply. As for the con�tent of all other tropospheric gases, including carbon�containing СО2 and СН4, it does not change owing to

the full stirring of the homosphere under the heights of90 km. For some reason, the increase in the concen�tration of these anthropogenic components of thegreenhouse effect has not affected in any way thewarming of the middle and upper parts of the tropo�sphere without water vapors over the past decades.Within the concept of the radiooptical mechanism,the role of water vapors is clear; namely, water vaporsparticipate directly in cloud formation, controlled bythe factors of solar–geomagnetic activity through theintensity of ionospheric microwave radiation. There�fore, experiments show an increase in cloud cover witha parallel decrease in the content of water vapors in thecolumn of the middle and upper parts of the tropo�sphere and vice versa, i.e., in direct dependence on thephase of growth or fall in solar activity.

Modern urbanization also influences the recordedvalues of the effect of global warming. In the past threedecades, most weather stations of the world (up to 92%according to the National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration [26]) have found themselves in urbandevelopment areas or close to them. This can add avalue to thermometer readings that exceeds 1°С,which is higher than the total effect of global warmingobserved (about 0.6°С). Moreover, urbanization leadsto a decrease in evaporation owing to water dischargeinto the sewerage, and, for Moscow, this produces anincrement of 35 W m–2 in the warm season [26], whichis 21 times higher than the virtual greenhouse contri�bution of CO2 (1.65 W m–2). In general, urbanizationprobably has a double effect on the content of watervapors and always toward the temperature increase ofthe ground air. First, there are no heat inputs for evap�oration in a big city (water is drained from asphaltedstreets into the sewerage); second, heat�and�powerplants, automobiles, etc., produce water vapor duringfuel combustion, and the weight of this vapor exceedsthe mass of combusted fuel amplifying the greenhouseeffect, since water vapor exceeds carbon dioxide in itsgreenhouse properties by two orders of magnitude.

−24

1963

%

1976 1989 2002

−20

−16

−12

−8

−4

Fig. 6. Average monthly values of cosmic ray variations at the station in Dolgoprudnyi (Moscow oblast) [http://cr0.izmi�ran.rssi.ru/mosc/main.htm].The ordinate axis count starts with the cosmic ray intensity in the 1965 maximum (May�June average), inferred for the zero.



The comparative quantitative analysis of the ener�getics of anthropogenic and natural factors of contem�porary climate change shows that the natural compo�nent (solar–geomagnetic activity) is more importantfor its contribution to the radiation balance than thegreenhouse effect based on anthropogenic carbon�containing gases. Indeed, the value of the Earth’s heatradiation flux outgoing to space has increased by15 W m–2, which is almost six times larger than thetotal net effect of greenhouse gases recorded by theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change overmany years (2.63 W m–2). The main point is that inthis case up to 7 W m–2 of additional outgoing long�wave radiation (OLR) is formed during the processinginto heat of an additional shortwave radiation that inthe amount of 10 W m–2 [25] started to penetrate intothe lower troposphere after the area of global cloudi�ness had decreased. This coefficient of transformationof solar radiation incoming to the Earth (342 W m–2),into the full OLR flux, which had already increased bythe beginning of this century from the late 1980s to240 W m–2, was estimated by the ratio 240/342 = 0.7.The contribution to global climate changes of the solarconstant variation (about 0.1%, i.e., 0.3 W m–2) isobviously insignificant against the backdrop of bothsolar–geomagnetic trends and the growing anthropo�genic effect.

POSSIBILITIES OF ACCOUNTING FOR SOLAR ACTIVITY IN WEATHER–CLIMATE

FORECASTS

Now let us consider possibilities of accounting forsolar activity in forecasting weather–climate phenom�ena in the context of our concept of solar–tropo�spheric correlations. We already noted above thequasi�periodicity of 2–5.5 years in ground–air tem�peratures and precipitation, recorded by meteorolo�gists when studying the correlation with Wolf numbers.Within the three�step trigger mechanism, this result isquite understandable: the increase of heating (opti�cally thin) cloudiness occurs thanks to the growingflux of microwaves from the ionosphere both under theeffect of solar flares and during magnetic storms. Onthe time scale (see Fig. 2), it takes about a year or lessto identify the dependence of the correlation in theoccurrence of total and lower cloudiness with solarflare and sunspot activity: the middle curve is themonthly averaged number of sunspots; the upper curveis the current course of the solar constant value TSI;and the lower curve and its linear trends are monthlyaveraged satellite data about the total global cloudcover. It is clear from Fig. 2 that at least intense peaksin the number of sunspots are in anticorrelation withovercast skies, and, in the TSI value (and consequentlyin the value of the intensity of the ionizing flux of flarefields of the Sun’s photosphere), they are in direct cor�

relation. The revealed picture also corresponds fully tothe concept of the radiooptical mechanism effect onovercast occurrence. Then we should state that we canpredict changes in the cloud cover area and, conse�quently, the Earth’s heat�radiation balance with a leadtime of several months (proceeding from the knownstatistics of these formations' lifetime in the Sun’sphotosphere) by the number of sunspots and flarefields, as well as identify variations in the temperatureof the ground air and precipitation intensity in theinterval of the 2.5� to 5�year quasi�periods by the dis�tribution statistics of large sun flares and global mag�netic storms. For the statistics of such events withinthe 11�year cycle, we can assume that 2–4 years elapsebetween the maxima of significant sun flares, but, forgeomagnetic storms, this period is longer, 2–6 years.

Note once again that the physics of the discussed“solar signal” effect on the atmosphere is related to theradiooptical three�step trigger mechanism, whenmicrowave radiation, generated by the ionosphereunder the factors of amplified solar and geomagneticactivity, regulates the condensation–cluster process ofthe genesis and further evolution of the cloud cover,including precipitation formation when “seeded” withcrystals from the upper layer clouds. However, themain practical results of this work were obtained par�ticularly from the analysis of correlations between thetotality of ground�based and satellite information onweather–climatic characteristics, including cloudoccurrence and variations in the Earth’s balance, onthe one hand, and the factors of solar–geomagneticactivity, on the other.

The authors of [30] believe that the global amountof lower cloudiness is in phase opposition with TSI,and the global distribution of overcast, on the contrary,is in phase with TSI; in other words, it is geneticallyrelated to the influence of the ionizing radiation ofsolar flare fields. Therefore, we may conclude that themiddle and upper clouds (in their part that is close tocondensation haze and that is still optically thin)weigh heavily upon the lower clouds in reaction toincreased solar–geomagnetic activity and, conse�quently, to increased ionization in the Earth’s iono�sphere with its subsequent generation of microwaveradiation. The optically thin cloudiness has maximalpotential to contribute both to the heating effect of theatmospheric air (if the cloudiness is abundant as dur�ing the maximal solar–geomagnetic activity) and tothe phenomenon of passage (exit) of the Earth’s heatradiation to space (during the decrease in the area ofoptically thin clouds in the recent epoch of recessionin solar activity in the secular cycle).

We stress that the influence of heliogeophysicalactivity and ionospheric disturbance on weather–cli�matic characteristics is an interdisciplinary problem,and meteorologists, even together with geographers,are unable to solve it. Here is an example of a wide�

284


AVAKYAN

spread mistake. Many meteorological and geographi�cal publications about the nature of global climaticvariations consider the known astronomical effects(for instance, orbital variations and the trend of theEarth’s rotation speed, as well as changes in the solarsystem’s position in the Galaxy). Note that astronom�ical (orbital) effects can really be interesting in termsof the Earth’s climate on a long�period scale (from 103

to 106 years). For shorter periods, the Earth’s positionrelative to other planets, including the giant planets ofJupiter and Saturn, is taken into account. However, forthe above gravitational solar–planetary effects, there isthe hypothesis of the resonance structure of the solarsystem [31], which is most evident in the variability ofsolar activity (the number of powerful flares). It fol�lows from this hypothesis that a nonlinear oscillatingsystem, like the Sun and its planets during their suffi�ciently long dynamic evolution, tries to reach a syn�chronous regime in which the frequencies of individ�ual processes (for example, solar flare activity orchanges in various parameters of the planetary system)are in simple multiple relations among themselves. Forexample, the influence of the periodic movement of theplanets on solar flares, which seems insignificant owingto the small energy of gravitational interaction betweenthe planetary system and the Sun compared to the ener�getics of solar activity, has a deep physical cause. Reso�nant vectors in the solar system, defined in [31], corre�spond to those identified by statistical processing ofperennial data on the distribution of solar flares in a yearby the number of recorded solar cosmic rays in morethan 1000 cases [32]. We may state that the positions ofgiant planets manifest themselves in the statistical tem�poral distribution of moments of increased solar activ�ity, and there is no need to look for ways of individualaccounting for these astronomical effects.

We should stress that the development of the phys�ical mechanism of influence of solar and geomagneticactivity factors on weather–climatic characteristicsmay become a clue to the methods of human controlof weather and climate.

The results given in this article contradict the fash�ion of exaggerating the role of human interference innature within short—several decades—periods. Letus recall the “ozone problem”: in the 1970s the causeof a hole in the stratospheric ozone layer over Antarc�tic was linked to Freon discharges. In reality, the ratiobetween the contribution of Freon and natural chan�nels of ozone destruction has not been fully measuredfor the simple reason that the Montreal agreementslimiting Freon production and use were implementedby the world community before the first direct mea�surements of concentrations of chlorine compoundsin the stratosphere at the heights of the ozone maxi�mum. At the same time, the Soviet cosmonauts them�selves saw high, stratospheric clouds right in the areaof Antarctic in 1978 [33]. Heterogeneous reactions

(on the surface of ice particles of these clouds) lead tothe acceleration of reactions that kill ozone moleculesby several orders of magnitude. The increase in thepolar stratospheric cloud cover in the late 1970s andthe first half of the 1980s agrees well with the analyticalresults in this article concerning that satellite informa�tion on global cloud distribution that has been receivedin state�of�the�art space experiments since 1983.Thus, in 1985–1987, during the latest secular maxi�mum of solar electromagnetic–corpuscular activity,the most significant occurrence of clouds of all typeswas observable over the globe. Within our concept ofthe influence of the main factors of solar–geomag�netic activity on cloud formation processes, this islinked right to the passage through the total secularmaximum of clearly manifested quasi�centenary andquasi�bicentenary cycles of solar activity. It is hard toassume that the latest secular maximum in solar activ�ity, which fell on the period when the ozone hole wasrecorded, did not affect the genesis of stratosphericpolar clouds. So, the analysis of the situation with thephysical causes of another, climatic, “problem of thecentury” allows the scientific community to focus onthe need for an all�round study of primarily naturalcauses of global changes in the environment.

The decision of the Russian Security Council toestablish the interdepartmental Climate ResearchCenter in St. Petersburg appears to be important. Inearly 2011, the Commission for the Physical Problemsof Recent Climate Change started to work at theResearch Council on Ecology and Natural Resourcesunder the RAS Research Center in St. Petersburg andprepared a composite package of proposals for theNational Climate Program. Taking into account thegreat scientific potential of St. Petersburg, includingthe entities of the Federal Service for Hydrometeorol�ogy and Environmental Monitoring (Rosgidromet)and academic research institutes, such as the Chief(Pulkovo) Astronomical Observatory, the Physicote�chnical Institute, and the branch of the Institute ofTerrestrial Magnetism, the Ionosphere, and RadioWave Propagation, we may expect to produce scien�tific rationales for intergovernmental agreements,including Russia’s participation in the Kyoto Proto�col, which was suspended in 2012.

REFERENCES

1. Proc. First All�Union Conference “Solar–AtmosphericCorrelations in Climate Theory and Weather Forecasts”(Gidrometeoizdat, Leningrad, 1974) [in Russian].

2. S. V. Avakyan, “Optics in the global changes of environ�ment,” Armen. J. Phys. 2 (1) (2009).

3. K. Ya. Kondrat’ev and L. S. Ivlev, Climatology of Aero�sols and Cloudiness (VVM, St. Petersburg, 2008) [inRussian].

4. V. L. Krauklis, G. A. Nikol’skii, M. M. Safronova, andE. O. Shul’ts, “On the conditions under which the



anomalous extinction of the UV radiation by aerosolcan occur in clear atmosphere,” Opt. Atmos. 3 (3), 227(1990).

5. G. A. Nikol’skii and E. O. Shul’ts, “Spectral and tem�poral variations of the residual extinction in the nearUV Region,” Opt. Atmos. 4 (9), 961 (1991).

6. V. S. Troitskii, A. M. Starodubtsev, L. N. Bondar’, et al.,“Search for sporadic radio emission from space at cen�timeter and decimeter wavelengths,” Izv. Vyssh.Uchebn. Zaved., Radiofiz. 16 (3) (1973).

7. S. V. Avakyan, A. E. Serova, and, N. A. Voronin “Therole of Rydberg atoms and molecules in the upperatmosphere,” Geomagn. Aeron. 37 (3), 331 (1997).

8. S. M. Grach, V. M. Fridman, L. M. Lifshits, et al.,“Decimeter electromagnetic radiation stimulated byshortwave heating of the atmosphere,” in Proc. XX All�Russia Conference on Radio Wave Propagation, (NizhniNovgorod, 2002) [in Russian].

9. S. V. Avakyan and N. A. Voronin, “Possible mecha�nisms for the influence of heliogeophysical activity onthe biosphere and the weather,” J. Opt. Technol. 73 (4),281 (2006).

10. V. I. Vernadsky, Scientific Thought As a Planetary Phe�nomenon (Nauka, Moscow, 1991) [in Russian].

11. D. R. Bates, “Electron–ion recombination in an ambi�ent molecular gas,” J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Phys. 14 (18),3525 (1981).

12. A. A. Dmitriev and T. Yu. Lomakina, “Cloud cover andspace X�ray radiation,” in Solar Activity Effects in theLower Atmosphere (Gidrometeoizdat, Leningrad, 1977)[in Russian].

13. K. Ya. Kondrat’ev and V. I. Binenko, “Cirrus clouds,radiation, and climate,” in Science and TechnologyResults, Ser. Meteorology and Climatology (VINITI,Moscow, 1988), Vol. 18 [in Russian].

14. E. P. Borisenkov, T. A. Bazlova, and L. N. Efimova, Cir�rus Cover and Its Influence on Atmospheric Processes(Gidrometeoizdat, Leningrad, 1989) [in Russian].

15. V. N. Kolesnikova and A. S. Monin, “Spectra ofmicrometeorological, synoptic, and climatic oscilla�tions of meteorological fields,” in MeteorologicalResearch, General Circulation of the Earth’s Atmosphere(Nauka, Moscow, 1968), Vol. 16, pp. 30–57 [in Rus�sian].

16. S. V. Avakyan and N. A. Voronin, “On the radioopticaland optical mechanisms of influence of cosmic factorson the global warming,” J. Opt. Technol. 77 (2), 141(2010).

17. R. E. Benestad, Solar Activity and Earth’s Climate(Springer�Praxis, 2002).

18. V. A. Rumyantsev and Yu. A. Trapeznikov, “Groundingof forming mechanism for short�term climatic cycles ofhydrometeorological processes,” Izv. Russ. Geogr.Obshch. 144 (3), 9 (2012).

19. S. V. Avakyan and N. A. Voronin, “The role of spaceand ionospheric disturbances in the global climate

change and pipeline corrosion,” Izv., Atm. OceanicPhys. 47 (9), 1143 (2011).

20. M. Lockwood and C. Frohlich, “Recent oppositelydirected trends in solar climate forcings and the globalmean surface air temperature,” in Proc. R. Soc. Lon�don, Ser. A (2007). doi 10.1098/r5sspa.2007.1880

21. J. Lean, “Living with a variable sun,” Phys. Today,No. 6, 35 (2005).

22. A. Belov, H. Garcia, V. Kurt, and E. Mavromichalaki,“Proton events and X�ray flares in the last three solarcycles,” Cosm. Res. 43 (3), 165 (2005).

23. V. N. Aref’ev, F. V. Kashin, V. K. Semenov, et al., “Watervapor in the atmosphere over the northern Tien Shan,”Izv. Atm. Oceanic Phys. 42 (6), 739 (2006).

24. P. R. Good and E. Palle, “Shortwave forcing of theEarth’s climate: Modern and historical variations in thesun’s irradiance and the Earth’s reflectance,” J. Atm.Sol.�Terr. Phys. 69 (13), 1556 (2007).

25. V. A. Golovko, “Global redistribution of componentsof the Earth’s radiation balance,” Issled. Zemli Kos�mosa, No. 5 (2003).

26. O. M. Pokrovskii, “Climate: Myths and reality,” Gos.Upravlenie Resursami, No. 1(55) (2010).

27. S. V. Avakyan, “Channels of cosmophysical factorsinfluence on the weather and climate characteristics,”in Proc. All�Russia Annual Conference on Solar Physics“Solar and Solar–Terrestrial Physics�2010.” October 3–9, 2010 (GAO, St. Petersburg, 2010) [in Russian].

28. S. P. Gorshkov, “Causes of global warming andincreased climate instability: Possible countermeasuresoff the Kyoto Protocol,” in Sustainable Development:Problems and Prospects, Vol. 4: Rational Nature Man�agement: International Programs, Russian and ForeignPractices (KMK, Moscow, 2010) [in Russian].

29. N. B. Leonova and G. N. Ogureeva, “Forest vegetationof the temperate zone under global environmentalchanges,” in Recent Global Changes in the Natural Envi�ronment (Nauchnyi Mir, Moscow, 2006), Vol. 2 [in Rus�sian].

30. J. E. Kristjansson, J. Kristiansen, and E. Kaas, “Solaractivity, cosmic rays, clouds, and climate—an update,”Adv. in Space Res. 34, 407 (2004). doi10.1016/j.asr.2003.02.040

31. A. M. Molchanov, “Resonanses in multifrequencyoscillations,” Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 168 (2), 284(1966).

32. V. P. Kozelov and G. I. Mingaleva, “Anisotropy of solarflare activity in the inertial space and the resonanceability of the solar system,” in Substorms and Excita�tions in the Magnetosphere (Nauka, Leningrad, 1975),pp. 264–274 [in Russian].

33. A. I. Lazarev, V. V. Kovalenok, and S. V. Avakyan, Stud�ies of the Earth from Piloted Spaceships (Gidrometeoiz�dat, Leningrad, 1987) [in Russian].

Translated by B. Alekseev

SPELL: 1. orography