Climate Change and the Earth’s Magnetic Poles, A Possible Connection

http://www.akk.me.uk

Abstract:
Many natural mechanisms have been proposed for climate change during the past millennia, however, none of these appears to have accounted for the change in global temperature seen over the second half of the last century. As such the rise in temperature has been attributed to man made mechanisms. Analysis of the movement of the Earth’s magnetic poles over the last 105 years demonstrates strong correlations between the position of the north magnetic, and geomagnetic poles, and both northern hemisphere and global temperatures. Although these correlations are surprising, a statistical analysis shows there is a less than one percent chance they are random, but it is not clear how movements of the poles affect climate. Links between changes in the Earth’s magnetic field and climate change, have been proposed previously although the exact mechanism is disputed. These include: The Earth’s magnetic field affects the energy transfer rates from the solar wind to the Earth’s atmosphere which in turn affects the North Atlantic Oscillation. Movement of the poles changes the geographic distribution of galactic and solar cosmic rays, moving them to particularly climate sensitive areas. Changes in distribution of ultraviolet rays resulting from the movement of the magnetic field, may result in increases in the death rates of carbon sinking oceanic plant life such as phytoplankton.

Author: Kerton, Adrian K.
Source: Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, January 2009 , pp. 75-83(9)
Publisher: Multi-Science Publishing Co Ltd
Keywords: MAGNETIC POLES; DRIFT; CLIMATE; COSMIC RAYS

Document Type: Research article

DOI: 10.1260/095830509787689286

As we have more GCRs in the atmosphere, we form clouds and precipitation at a lower humidity threshold. What does this mean? It means that clouds are more likely to form where the water evaporates, that is at tropical regions and that humidity has less chances of reaching higher latitudes. This has the effect of increasing the albedo at tropical regions, where the solar irradiation is the most important and of decreasing the humidity at higher latitudes where this enhances the thermal radiation (we all know that water is an important green house gas and more abundant than CO2). Obviously, there are places where increased GCR produce an opposite effect due to geographical particularities, but the general trend is clear.
Again, it is obvious that TSI varies insignificantly with the solar cycle and that the GCR level is modulated by the solar activity. We don’t know though the intrinsic variability in GCR, I am an astrophysicist and we believe that they come from many sources to keep them more or less constant, but isolated events can cause major spikes.
In my oppinion, I think that the GCR level is an important weather regulator, more important than the man made CO2 emissions.

I tend to agree with you. As I originally said the Wikipedia explanation doesn’t do it for me. It says things like the following; “If the atmosphere is more opaque, the typical photon escaping into space will be emitted from higher in the atmosphere, because one then has to go to higher altitudes to see out to space in the infrared. Since the emission of infrared radiation is a function of temperature, it is the temperature of the atmosphere at this emission level that is effectively determined by the requirement that the emitted flux balance the absorbed solar flux.” This makes little sense to me.

I wish Watt would post a posting that deals with quantifying the affect of the “greenhouse effect” Then there would be a proper venue for discussing how the greenhouse effect is supposed to work.

I think if the affect of the greenhouse effect could be quantified it would be far less than the effect due to solar activity.

We were discussing how the Greenhouse Effect is supposed to work.

We agreed that increasing the concentration of CO2 would reduce the penetration into the atmosphere towards earth of the those photons absorbable by CO2 coming from space (sun).

I believe we agreed that increasing the concentration of CO2 would reduce the penetration into the atmosphere of photons absorbable by CO2 radiated from earth. This process was not as efficient as the reduction of absorbable photons coming from space. This is due to the fact once a CO2 absorbed photon is reradiated into space it is lost forever. While the CO2 absorbed photons that are reradiated to earth have there energy absorbed by earth. When this energy is again radiated from earth there is only a 50% reduction in the photons that are absorbable by a GHG.

The greenhouse effect is supposed to warm the atmosphere. Nothing we have discussed shows this happening.

Is this supposed to be happening while the CO2 photons are being converted to photons that are not absorbable by GHGs by repeated absorbtion and reradiation by earth? Is this supposed to be happening due to a slight increase in the earth’s temperature caused by the retention of heat energy during the additional time required to convert GHG absorbable photons to non-absorbable photons? Is this increase in temperature causing more heat energy to be transfered to the atmosphere by conduction and convection? Is this how the greenhouse effect is supposed to work?

A more efficient method would be for the energy gained by a CO2 molecule due to an absorbed photon be transvered to other atmospheric molecules due to collisions. This would cause a greater warming of the atmosphere. But I believe you don’t think this happens.

perhaps the moderator would correct my [involuntarily funny] wrong copy-paste.

[REPLY - Your "rise" has "fallen". ~ Evan]

Touche.

BTW, do you maintain a CV at your site?

It seems the facts have hardened during the period of this thread.

“10Be lags the HMF [or the solar cycle] by 2-5 years”

A range in the variable greater than its ascertained value, a signal indication of a dodgy result.

Snow blows and snow sublimes, the maximum effect varying with the season. Is this chalked up to climate?

Dare we ask for the residence time of nitrate aloft?