From the “science is settled” department comes this new paper that points out a correlation between the Interplanetary Magnetic Field (IMF) and polar jet streams, which drive weather events on Earth. This new paper shows that the effects extend even further towards the Equator than before, meaning it will affect weather experienced by a greater portion of Earth’s human population.
Given that the solar magnetic dynamo has been in a slump as of late, and we’ve experienced a very low U.S. tornado season, one wonders if the low tornado numbers are partially related to lack of perturbations induced in the jet stream, which guide storm tracks and fronts.
The effect may also extend to the 2013 Northern Hemisphere hurricane season, which has also been a bust, despite early predictions.
So far the 2013 Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) count for the Northern Hemisphere is 217, about half of what it normally is for this date at 432. Source: WeatherBell, Dr. Ryan Maue
The paper, in Environmental Research Letters is:
==================================
The interplanetary magnetic field influences mid-latitude surface atmospheric pressure
M M Lam, G Chisham and M P Freeman
Abstract
The existence of a meteorological response in the polar regions to fluctuations in the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) component By is well established. More controversially, there is evidence to suggest that this Sun–weather coupling occurs via the global atmospheric electric circuit. Consequently, it has been assumed that the effect is maximized at high latitudes and is negligible at low and mid-latitudes, because the perturbation by the IMF is concentrated in the polar regions.
We demonstrate a previously unrecognized influence of the IMF By on mid-latitude surface pressure. The difference between the mean surface pressures during times of high positive and high negative IMF By possesses a statistically significant mid-latitude wave structure similar to atmospheric Rossby waves.
Our results show that a mechanism that is known to produce atmospheric responses to the IMF in the polar regions is also able to modulate pre-existing weather patterns at mid-latitudes.
We suggest the mechanism for this from conventional meteorology. The amplitude of the effect is comparable to typical initial analysis uncertainties in ensemble numerical weather prediction. Thus, a relatively localized small-amplitude solar influence on the upper atmosphere could have an important effect, via the nonlinear evolution of atmospheric dynamics, on critical atmospheric processes.
============================================================
Figure 1 shows the extent:
In the discussion section they write:
To explain the observed correlation of IMF By with surface pressure we propose that the mid-latitude surface pressure is influenced by IMF By via a two-stage process comprising: (i) a change in the polar surface pressure involving the global atmospheric electric circuit [5, 6], and (ii) a resulting change in the mid-latitude surface pressure via conventional meteorology. The first of these two processes, concerning the influence of IMF By fluctuations on the polar surface pressure remains under-explored and controversial [17, 18]. However, our analysis of the surface pressure anomaly field
provides new evidence supporting a direct relationship with the ionospheric electric potential.
Figure 3 is a schematic representing this two-stage process: in the Northern Hemisphere, as IMF By switches from dawnward to duskward, the potential difference between the ionosphere and the Earth’s surface, V, and the sea-level pressure p, decrease in the northern polar region. The direct effect on sea-level pressure in the polar regions (figures S3 and S4, available at stacks.iop.org/ERL/8/045001/mmedia), along with the lack of effect on pressure at low latitudes, results in a change in the latitudinal sea-level pressure gradient in mid-latitude regions (figure S5, available at stacks.iop.org/ERL/8/045001/mmedia) associated with an increase in the mean zonal wind U at mid-latitudes. Generalizing the original theory of Rossby waves [10] to the case of periodic variations in both longitude and latitude [19], we obtain U = β/(k2 + l2) where k and l are the wavenumbers in the longitudinal and latitudinal directions, respectively. For a fixed value of k (and hence m), an increase in U leads to a decrease in l and an increase in meridional wavelength Lθ. Thus variations in IMF By modify the quasi-stationary Rossby wavenumber (k,l), accounting for the Rossby-wave-like form of
. The variations in V,p,U,l and Lθ are reversed in the Southern Hemisphere. More details are in section 2 of the supplementary data (available at stacks.iop.org/ERL/8/045001/mmedia).
Figure 3. Our hypothesis is that the mid-latitude surface pressure is influenced by IMF By via a two-stage process. (i) As IMF By changes from dawnward to duskward, the electric potential difference between the ionosphere and the Earth’s surface, V, and the sea-level pressure p, decrease in the northern polar region; (ii) the mean zonal wind U at mid-latitudes increases resulting in an increase in the meridional wavelength (for simplicity labelled L in this figure; in text referred to as Lθ) of the stationary Rossby wave with an integer number of azimuthal waves m (at co-latitude θ and latitude λ = 90° − θ). The variations in V,p,U and L are reversed in the Southern Hemisphere.
They write in the conclusion section of the paper:
Previously, proposals to link solar wind variations to significant weather or climate variability have been dismissed on the grounds that the magnitude of the energy change in the atmosphere associated with the solar wind variability is far too small to impact the Earth’s system. However, this argument neglects the importance of nonlinear atmospheric dynamics [20]. The amplitudes of the IMF-related changes in atmospheric pressure gradient are comparable with the initial uncertainties in the corresponding zonal wind used in ensemble numerical weather prediction (NWP) [21] of ~1 m s−1. Such uncertainties are known to be important to subsequent atmospheric evolution and forecasting [22]. Consequently, we have shown that a relatively localized and small-amplitude solar influence on the upper polar atmosphere could have an important effect, via the nonlinear evolution of atmospheric dynamics on critical processes such as European climate and the breakup of Arctic sea ice [23].
In particular, it affects the structure of the Rossby wavefield, which is key in determining the trajectory of storm tracks [24]. The configuration of the North Atlantic jet stream is particularly susceptible to changes in forcing [25]. In turn, so are the location and the timing of blocking events in this region, in which vortices are shed from the jet stream leading to prolonged periods of low or of high pressure [26]. It has also been proposed that the low-frequency variability of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) arises as a result of variations in the occurrence of upper-level Rossby wavebreaking events over the North Atlantic [27]. The NAO itself is key to climate variability over the Atlantic–European sector stretching from the east coast of the United States to Siberia, and the Arctic to the subtropical Atlantic [28, 25].
Our results may therefore provide part of the explanation for previously observed correlations between Eurasian winter temperatures and solar variability [29, 30], and for the ‘Wilcox effect’ where reductions in the areas of high vorticity in winter storms are seen at times of solar wind heliospheric current sheet crossings [31] (which are characterized by sharp changes between steady, opposite IMF By states).
To me this is an important discovery, particularly since it manifests itself most strongly at the poles, and the opinion of mainstream climate science is that global warming will show up at the poles more strongly via “polar amplification”.
Full paper in open access here: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/4/045001/article
h/t to Jo Nova
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Does this mean Coronal Mass Ejections that are not deflected have an impact on the climate?
we are getting closer and closer to the solar-climate link. The link that alarmists insist does not exist and therefore could not have contributed to global warming since 1979, or 1900, or LIA.
I’m just waiting for Svensmark to chime in and say that it’s not important.
A point I’ve made previously is that an equatorward shift of the jets and climate zones results in more global cloudiness, less energy into the oceans to fuel tropical weather systems, less distance available for them to travel and build up power and a more equatorward upper air shear to stop their further growth.
Looks like this is vindication of that viewpoint.
The next interesting question is as to whether it really is a matter of magnetic field variations or whether those variations have no causative influence themselves but are simply a proxy for other solar changes that do have the effect observed.
My view is that it is a matter of upper air chemistry involving ozone and the magnetic field variation would only affect ozone reactions involving charged particles which are directed in along the magnetic field lines. I do not know what proportion of the ozone response to solar variations can be put down to charged particles. I would have thought that wavelength changes would be the more substantial contributor which would not be affected by the magnetic field.
Very interesting to see a coupling between the actual shrinking of the ionosphere due to te clear slump in solar activity and the proposed weather effects. The weather effects have been clearly visible for anyone living in the mid-latitudes as can be seen by stronger winters and summers and less tornadoes/mixing of atmosphere since 2008. In any way much of the alarms about AGW giving less snow, more tornadoes etc have evaporated since by reality (well for those who look out of there window). If Northpole ice and global temperature will be affected too is still unclear but I wouldn’t be surprised.
Climate relations based on 4 years of data 1999-2002 are a bit too thin for my taste. Full Disclosure: I was one of the co-authors of the paper announcing the Wilcox-effect: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/180/4082/185.short
IMHO that effect is spurious, although it looked good at the time [1973]..
Leif said:
“IMHO that effect is spurious, although it looked good at the time [1973]..”
It may not have been spurious after all. Time to reopen such matters with the benefit of modern sensors.
At the time of Leif’s ‘spurious’ diagnosis little was known about latitudinal climate zone shifting, changes in jet stream behaviour, ocean oscillations and differential effects of solar variations at different heights and latitudes.
Plug all that in and I think it is going to become a lot clearer.
SanityP says:
October 9, 2013 at 7:45 am
Svensmark or Svalgaard?
Which great Dane did you have in mind?
This of course begs the question of what effects may be seen by the same mechanism on longer time periods.
The science is getting settled-er and settled-er
You are corrrect, I meant Svalgaard of course.
… and it didn’t take long either.
SanityP says:
October 9, 2013 at 8:20 am
Ten minutes. I for one am glad that Dr. S checks in of a work day morning Pacific Time.
I suspect that the effect is transient. If the voltage were constant, the pressure would just even out. In other words, I think it matters that the voltage is changing. There may not be a long term effect per se, it may just be the sum of the short term effects.
Maybe Piers Corbyn will get more respect now.
REPLY: Why should he? He hasn’t revealed any details of how he supposedly uses solar information to make those Jeane Dixon style never falsifiable forecasts he hypes. – Anthony
I would like to pose a simple question directed at Dr. Leif Svalgaard:
It seems that no matter what hypothesis is proposed linking solar activity, solar magnetic field, or anything else solar to weather/climate changes on Earth, you are very quick to jump out with “That hypothesis has already been falsified by X (X being some study or other)”. That’s fine, and it is informative. However, what might be more enlightening to the average reader here on this site would be for you to answer what you DO think might actually have an influence on the weather/climate here on Earth. Is it the Sun? If not, then is it CO2? If not, then what do YOU suppose it to be and WHY?
It is informative to say when you believe that an hypothesis has already been falsified (although further study using new methods may show that it isn’t as falsified as you might think in some cases), but it is even more informative, in my opinion anyway, to get some insight into what you think truly DOES drive the climate system on Earth here.
I get the general impression from the vast majority of your posts that with your vast knowledge of solar physics and solar dynamics you truly believe that changes in solar activity (and all of the other related solar changes, magnetic, etc.) really have VERY little effect on Earth’s climate whatsoever. If that is a true description of your informed opinion, then what do you believe actually DOES control the climate here? (Since you are not a “climate scientist” per se, a simple “I don’t actually know, but it doesn’t seem to be solar-related” would suffice, although it would be somewhat unsatisfying for those of us who are curious).
I, for one, greatly appreciate your willingness to share your knowledge on a site like this and to take the time to participate in these discussions.
Svensmark vs. Svalgaard… two Great Danes! Thanks for the morning grin!
Al Gore told me that Arctic warming is making the jet stream whip around like a crazy monkey, which is why we have such wild weather….http://www.npr.org/2013/09/25/225754902/wild-weather-tied-to-unusual-jet-stream-activity
….if we can’t believe Al, who CAN we believe? Uh, wait a minute….
Anybody any idea what effect reduced hurricane (ACE) activity could have on global SSTs?
Bob Tisdale demonstrated Sandy having a significant local effect:-
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/figure-12.png
“The Impact of Sandy on Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies Along Its Track”
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/11/11/the-impact-of-sandy-on-sea-surface-temperature-anomalies-along-its-track/
I have been watching these effects since 1982, and the Earth crosses the solar plasma sheet every time the moon declinationaly crosses the equator in either direction, because the changes in the polarity in the solar wind is what drives the North/South declinational movement of the earth/moon system above and below the ecliptic plane, pivoting around the E/M barycenter.
By this method the moon converts the electrical/ion surges in the solar wind that enters the earths magnetic sphere of influence, into a mechanical declinational tidal force that is responsible for most of the MPH incursions, jet stream wanderings and periods, and frontal movement that controls the tracks of hurricanes, tornado, hail, and derecheo sever storms.
For years now I have been forecasting long range weather based on these cyclic patterns, and their predictable re-occurrence under very similar conditions. Most of the end effects of these patterns occur in the mid-latitudes where the resulting declinational tidal bulges form at culmination.
It is nice to see that some one has opened a door to the understanding of the mechanics of how this all works. It leaves open the research into the specific satellite measurements of the strengths of the interactions, that can be refined to quantify the power spectra of the transfer processes, so they can be used as algorithms to be added to the numerical model forecasts, and advance us past the 7-10 day window limit.
http://research.aerology.com/original-november-1994-hypothesis/
http://research.aerology.com/aerology-analog-weather-forecasting-method/
Is this not the pet theory of one of WUWT’s resident ‘alternative scientists’?? I seem to have read all this before.
The sun has no effect on anything……LOL
Several times in the past I have mentioned a correlation between CME’s and a temporary bump on the UAH daily temperature. With this we could have a mechanism. One possibility is the increase in pressure creates a temporary flattening of the jet streams (they become more zonal). This reduces the cloudiness and increases the solar energy input to the Earth. This would also explain why CMEs don’t always create the temperature bump. If the jet stream was already fairly zonal then the impact would be small.
And I might add that I have long championed the idea that our recent cold winters have been due to the European winter jetstream being much further south than usual (and not waving) – thus denying northern Europe of cyclones of warm air, and allowing anticyclonic cold air to drift down from the poles.
This paper (together with our reduced sunspot count) would suggest we are in for more anticyclonic conditions in N Europe, with fine summers and cold winters, and less rainfall. In fact, the rainfall may reverse its normal pattern and become more prevalent in summer than winter, because the strong winter anticyclones will resist the cyclonic systems that carry the rain.
Farmers beware….
The interplanetary magnetic field and the Arctic Oscillation
http://translate.google.it/translate?sl=it&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=it&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdaltonsminima.altervista.org%2F%3Fp%3D13899
Silver Ralph says:
October 9, 2013 at 9:41 am
Reply; Yes that is one of the problems of studying something 25 years before anybody cares about the field due to severe lack of hard data, it is just starting to show up to be used at this time. This is just one area of study that got blocked by the concentration of focus on CO2 studies.
http://research.aerology.com/severe-weather/derecho-storm-seen-from-space/
http://research.aerology.com/supporting-research/soil-moisture-video/
http://research.aerology.com/supporting-research/jgr-on-lunar-declinational-tides/
I for one, am glad the grant funders are recovering from rectal/cranial encrustation from the past 20 years.
A question from a non-scientist re:
Q. Is “important effect” essentially the same as “a meaningfully significant (as strictly used by statisticians) cause”?
“This is important!” Has no meaning for a layperson other than puffery, without clarification.
THANK YOU, if anyone answers this.
*************************
@ur momisugly Peter B. (in Indianapolis) — I agree. Negating comments provide helpful but frustratingly limited information. It would be wonderful if Dr. Svalgaard would:
1. post a full essay on: “What I Believe, Based on the Evidence Available at This Time, to Be the Controlling Drivers of Climate on Earth and Why.” OR
2. in lieu of such a divulging of his hypothesis about climate causation, an explanation of why he chooses to remain cryptically reticent on the subject would be very much appreciated.
No one is asking him to tell us the definitive “answer,” just his complete thoughts on the matter (or why he isn’t able to speak freely and completely to the issue).