Magnetism and Weather: Interconnections?

Opinion; Dr. Tim Ball

Way back in the last century, I suggested that in this 21st century the dominant issue in science would be magnetism and in resources water. This especially applies to climatology, where, thanks to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), they are either marginalized or ignored. It is not the only damage the IPCC have done. They kept the focus almost exclusively on CO2, and temperature within the atmosphere, at the expense of many other factors. William Kininmonth explains,

Climate models track the transfer of energy through the Earth system. The only boundary condition to the Earth system is solar intensity; everything else is dependent on the composition and physical/chemical/biological processes within the Earth system.

The recent article about the role of the “oceanic conveyor belt” in climate is nothing new, but is a reminder of IPCC narrowness. It is even worse with regard to extraterrestrial factors. Simple solar system activities, like the Milankovitch Effect or Svensmark’s Cosmic Theory, are barely included in their discussion and excluded from their models.

Too often, phenomena are considered, but rarely right back to the original mechanism. For example, everybody talks about El Nino and La Nina and accept they are caused by ocean current reversals, but suface ocean currents are created by wind, so the wind has to reverse first. But what makes the winds reverse? The upper level tropical easterlies have to weaken, stop, and start blowing in the opposite direction. What causes that? Van Loon and Labitzke showed correlations between sunspots and El Nino, but what was the mechanism?

clip_image002

Figure 1

Similarly, the Jet Stream shifts from Zonal to Meridional Wave patterns (Figure 1), but what causes that change?

Most of the considerations overlook physical causes, particularly wind, whether as advection within the atmosphere, or the solar wind impinging on the magnetosphere and the atmosphere.

Magnetic Reversals

Svensmark’s Theory related variation in solar magnetism to variation in low cloud cover and thus global temperature. It addressed two major issues in climate. First, it provided a mechanism of cause and effect between variations in sunspot numbers, an external forcing, and the internal result, varying global temperature. Second, it explained how there was more cloud formation and precipitation than the estimated available condensation nuclei.

One potential event is bringing magnetism into the public forum, but as usual, it is being exploited. The Earths magnetic field has been weakening for approximately 1000 years (Figure 2) and a simple trend extension suggests it will weaken to zero in the near future. The questions are, will the trend continue, and if it does, when will zero occur?

Like most alarmist exploitations, it is nothing new. Reversals occur on a regular and relatively frequent basis. Periods called Epochs fluctuate between Normal, as at present, with Reverse conditions. Discovery of these polarity reversals was important in establishing the continental drift theory. As lava emerges and cools, when it reaches the Curie Point, magnetically sensisitive minerals align with the existing polarity. The lava layers are a record of the changing polarity. The problem is it is a crude measure, so it’s unclear how long the process takes. We know extensive extinctions occur at the same time, but other impacts are not known. Does it affect the climate? The larger question is how magnetism affects weather in general.

NASA said in September 2013 that we were within 3 to 4 months of a polar magnetic reversal. They were wrong, but now a new paper says it will occur some time in the next 100 years. Either way, alarmists and the sensationalist media see another opportunity. To paraphrase Rahm Emmanuel, the mantra among environmentalists is to “Never let a good catastrophe go to waste.”

clip_image004

Figure 2

Evidence suggests there is no potential harm to humans as one commenter observed,

“The human race has survived many excursions and a few reversals already: so we are likely to come through the next one unscathed.”

Some suggest the Olduvai event was pivotal in human evolution, as that region of Africa is apparently important in the anthropological record. Some attribute demise of the Neanderthals to magnetic reversals, but why them and not others.

What happened to the weather during the reversals? Some researchers link them to dramatic weather pattern changes, but also to volcanic eruptions.

…the GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences described the connection between the Laschamp magnetic reversal, the Phlegrean Field (Campi Flegrei) volcanic eruption that devastated most of southeastern Europe, and periods of frequent rapid cooling and warming.

It is not clear if the weather fluctuations are due to volcanic dust or the reversal. This is not surprising because few consider magnetism as a factor and most assume that an exterenal forcing will affect all global temperature globally.

Earth’s Magnetism and Weather

What do we know about relationships between the Earth’s magnetic field and weather? The answer is very little, mostly due to the IPCC hijack, but also inadequate data and knowledge of mechanisms. Are people using solar or earth’s magnetism for weather forecasting? If your forecast works then you likely have the science correct, unlike the IPCC. It looked promising when a search found such sites such as Environment Canada’s “Space Weather”. It was actually a forecast of magnetic activity over Canada. (Figure 2)

clip_image006

Figure 2

There is, to my knowledge, no connection made by EC between this information and the underlying weather. This, despite the fact some are beginning to examine the issue. For example, an article in ScienceDaily is titled, “Sun’s Magnetic Field May Impact Weather and Climate: Sun Cycle Can Predict Rainfall Fluctuations”, references a 2008 work by Baker et al in Geophysical Research , but more on that later. One Aurora information web site from the University of Alaska answers the question, “Does the aurora have an effect on the environment?” with a simple, “Yes, but limited to the high altitude atmosphere.”

They are also primarily a high latitude event, but observations in lower latitudes are a sign of expansion of the dome of cold polar air. In England they were also called Lord Derwentwater’s lights because they were unusually bright on February 24th 1716, when he was beheaded. A bad omen for him, but are they indicators of anything else?

Flying in the arctic and later examining historic records of the region, I became familiar with the importance of these lights for northern indigenous people. They and the fur traders, who called them Petty Dancers from the French petite danseurs, used them as weather indicators.

The Cree in Manitoba forecast cold weather for three to four weeks after a prolonged display. Henry Youle Hind, leader of a scientific expedition across Canada, wrote about Ojibway predictions. On the 19th of September 1858 he wrote:

We arrived at the mouth of the river at 10 A.M., and hastened to avail ourselves of a south-east wind just to rise. Last night the aurora was very beautiful, and extended far beyond the zenith, leading the voyageurs to predict a windy day. The notion prevails with them that when the aurora is low, the following day will be calm; when high, stormy.

Samuel Hearne spent 2 1/2 years with the Chipewyan, (he called them Northern Indians), and wrote in his journal,

The Northern Indians call the Aurora Borealis , Ed-thin; and when that meteor is very bright, they say that deer is plentiful in that part of the atmosphere;,,, Their ideas in this respect are founded on a principle one would not imagine. Experience has shewn tham, that when a hairy deer-skin is briskly stroked with the hand in a dark night, it will emit many sparks of electrical fire, as the back of a cat will.

This effectively describes the phenomenon of static electricity. It is remarkably close to the current explanation of the aurora as an interaction between the solar wind, exciting gas particles of nitrogen and oxygen, causing a neon type glow.

There are some interesting studies that point to a relationship and impact not considered by most, especially the IPCC. For example, in 1974 J. King published Weather and Earth’s Magnetic Field. The abstract says,

A comparison of meteorological pressures and the strength of the geomagnetic field suggests a possible controlling influence of the field on the longitudinal variation of the average pressure in the troposphere at high latitudes. If so, changes which occur in the pattern of ‘permanent’ depressions in the troposphere as the magnetic field varies (for example, as the non-dipole component of the field drifts westwards) may be accompanied by climatic changes.

Another study by Professor Baker links solar activity to precipitation, concludes,

“The interaction between the directionality in the Sun’s and Earth’s magnetic fields, the incidence of ultraviolet radiation over the tropical Pacific, and changes in sea surface temperatures with cloud cover – could all contribute to an explanation of substantial changes in the SOI from solar cycle fluctuations. If solar cycles continue to show relational values to climate patterns, there is the potential for more accurate forecasting through to 2010 and possibly beyond.”

The sun’s magnetic field may have a significant impact on weather and climatic parameters in Australia and other countries in the northern and southern hemispheres. Droughts are related to the solar magnetic phases and not the greenhouse effect, according to new research.

 

A recent article on WUWT provides another perspective on,

a correlation between the Interplanetary Magnetic Field (IMF) and polar jet streams, which drive weather events on Earth.

This trend of articles on solar activity and weather suggests it is time to revisit my long-term interest. The quote, “To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven”, is appropriate. All of these factors attracted my interest during research for my doctoral thesis. I discovered a very strong 22-year cycle in a spectral analysis of a long precipitation record for two weather records. One, Churchill, is climatically sub arctic. The other, York Factory is mid-latitude and within the boreal forest. York has the 22-year pattern, but Churchill does not. This mid-latitude precipitation pattern, links with research of drought cycles on the Canadian Prairies. (“Climatic Change, Droughts and Their Social Impact: Central Canada, 1811-20, a classic example.” In C.R.Harington (ed) The Year Without a Summer? World Climate in 1816. 1992).

I also wrote an article for John Daly’s website speaking to a possible mechanism linking solar activity with variations in weather patterns. It stemmed from Environment Canada’s public claims and weather forecasts based on El Nino. It became the forecast fad after 1983 when El Nino pushed into southern California. This was north of its previous, more general, northern South America/Central America location and nothing grabs headlines like beach houses at Malibu being washed away.

Despite using El Nino for their forecasts EC were consistently wrong. I tried to explain that El Nino does not affect Canada; it only appeared like it, because the mechanism that changed El Nino also caused changes in the Jet Stream. What they were doing, was akin to saying that they watched cars and noticed every time the front bumper moved the back bumper moved. They concluded that the front bumper was causing the back bumper to move.

I proposed that a major mechanism is the varying pressure of the Solar Wind on the magnetosphere, down through the layers to the atmosphere, where it causes changes in the major wind patterns. The mechanism has to accommodate two major wind situations. First, is the reversal of upper troposphere equatorial winds, second, is the change from Zonal to Meridional Flow in the Jet Stream. This is achieved if you consider the atmosphere as a bellows that expands and contracts with increasing and decreasing Solar wind pressure. It creates a push-pull effect that causes the weaker tropical winds to stop or reverse and the much stronger Jet Stream to switch between low amplitude Zonal Flow and high amplitude Meridional Flow.

Those who only study one small piece of the complex puzzle that is weather and climate will make specious unhelpful comments, as usual. Others, especially those trying to make more accurate weather and thereby climate forecasts, will understand. We know the IPCC and all national forecasts are consistently wrong. We also know some achieve better results, but they are marginalized and ridiculed by the “official” agencies. Even mention of them here will trigger the cynicism. In general, for seasonal and annual patterns of weather, the Old Farmers Almanac has a reasonable record. It uses sunspot activity among other things. Piers Corbyn survives in the marketplace, where, if he were consistently wrong he would be out of business. His results gained attention from the Mayor of London.

I have not a clue whether his methods are sound or not. But when so many of his forecasts seem to come true, and when he seems to be so consistently ahead of the Met Office, I feel I want to know more.

Corbyn does not disclose his input and methods for commercial reasons. We do know magnetism is part of the mix. The IPCC, and some of its participants, do not fully disclose method and input with no justification, although we know they don’t include magnetism. Their motive is also commercial. They need to keep the industry of deception going, which requires keeping government and crony capitalist funding flowing. It doesn’t matter if the forecasts fail, the political success it what matters. It is essential for them to include or exclude factors that achieve the political goal. Unfortunately, too many skeptics are also unaware of many of the factors, but at least most of them are willing to listen.

5 3 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

190 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 29, 2014 9:16 pm

And the earth’s magnetic field is influenced by its electrical connection to the sun. Understanding the electrical nature of the sun is key to understanding earth’s climate and weather.

Reply to  Mark
October 29, 2014 9:32 pm

There is no electrical connection to the Sun. There is strong magnetic connection

ferdberple
Reply to  lsvalgaard
October 29, 2014 10:30 pm

There is no electrical connection to the Sun
================================
Speculation at best. Electromagnetic Fields. Flip sides of the same coin.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
October 29, 2014 10:35 pm

No, electromagnetic connection is plain sunlight taking 8 minutes to reach the Earth. An electric and a magnetic connection are completely different things. An electric connection would be a net electric charge flowing from the Sun [and there isn’t any]. A magnetic connection is the frozen-in magnetic field dragged into a spiral shape taking 4 days to reach the Earth.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
October 29, 2014 11:15 pm

Theres no such thing as a frozen in magnetic field field. Plasma is not a perfect conductor. It still has a small amount of resistance. The magnetic field changes smoothly with changes in the electron flow. There is no such thing as field lines. The magnetic field is smooth. Field Lines are just a pedagogical tool to indicate flux density and do not actually exist.
Flux tubes carry kinetic energy from one end to the other. Moving electrons can be considered a current.

Nancy C
Reply to  lsvalgaard
October 29, 2014 11:50 pm

Dr. Svalgaard, I assume you’d also say there’s no electrical connection between the AC power line in my house and the magnetron that cooks the food in my microwave oven? After all, there’s a magnetic transformer separating them, right?
Okay, technically it’s true…there’s no transfer of actual electrons between the line and the load, but there nevertheless seems to be some kind of correlation between the flows of electricity in the two, and more importantly, how hot the hot pocket gets. I’m going to go ahead and say probably the reason the hot pocket got hot was because of electricity. It may leave out a couple of steps.
I don’t mean this to make any kind of point or take any kind of stand on whether the sun’s magnetism affects terrestrial weather. I wouldn’t dare. I know virtually nothing about it; certainly much less than you. So I’m not defending the article, or Mark’s statement that understanding the electrical connection is key to understanding climate. But absolutely denying an electrical connection between sun and earth while simultaneously positively affirming a strong magnetic connection between the two seems a little silly and pointless. Nitpicking in the best interpretation, just being wrong in the worst. Does the sun cause corona? Is corona an electrical effect? There may be a couple of links in that chain, but I personally I don’t have a problem with someone calling that chain an electrical connection.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
October 30, 2014 12:12 am

Nancy C October 29, 2014 at 11:50 pm
But absolutely denying an electrical connection between sun and earth while simultaneously positively affirming a strong magnetic connection between the two seems a little silly and pointless.
Mother Nature is not silly. What is so hard for all of us to understand [because we live in non-conducting air] is that the rules are different in a highly-conducting plasma. Almost all ‘solar threads’ ends the same way: people not understanding the rules for plasma railing against reality helped along by ‘know-it-alls’ who actually don’t understand it either. In another thread I have linked to a chapter by Gene Parker, the ‘father of the solar wind’
http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s8454.pdf
“So one way or another, there is no significant persistent large-scale electric field in a plasma (collisionless or collision dominated). One might say that a plasma abhors electric fields and invariably finds a means to
avoid them. Only by reducing the degree of ionization of a gas to negligible values, e.g., the lower terrestrial atmosphere where we reside, is there a possibility for interesting large-scale electric field effects.” The chapter is well worth a read. Thousands of comments in scores of threads have discussed this, but many people display willful ignorance on the subject.

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
Reply to  lsvalgaard
October 30, 2014 1:29 am

As I have always understood it (an engineer, not a physicist) electricity and magnetism are inter-related – an electric current sets up a magnetic field. I hope you’ll note that I didn’t say they are one and the same thing (like mass and energy), but closely related.
Googling it, to reinforce my interpretation, I found this rather useful piece:
http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/~infocom/Ideas/electric.html
“Electricity and magnetism are essentially two aspects of the same thing, because a changing electric field creates a magnetic field, and a changing magnetic field creates an electric field.”

Reply to  lsvalgaard
October 30, 2014 3:04 am

(There is little of any value I can add to a solar article… and much confusion.)
But in this case lsvalgaard is just right, it seems to me.
The magnetic field connects the Earth and the Sun. There is no current flowing between them.
The question of a potential voltage being induced at the Earth’s end may need further discussion. But that isn’t an electric connection between the Earth and the Sun (or vice versa).
(Now the confusion) What effect does a lunar eclipse have on the magnetic connection – the moon contains iron and silicon after, all?
And electric solar system proponents, what predictions do you have about an eclipse?
Let’s test this.

Paul Westhaver
Reply to  lsvalgaard
October 30, 2014 10:31 am

Biot-Savart Law .. it is 195 years old. Geese!
It describes the magnetic field generated by an electric current.
Interaction is the key point of inquiry IMO.
We have a mildly varying electric and magnetic field from the sun, we have a hugely varying dynamo within the earth. Varying in spatial attributes, intensity and sense.
I doubt that anyone can definitively rule out climate effects due to the interaction of the solar fields and the earth fields. Step up for your Nobel Prize when you manage that.
The mammoth ball of liquid iron which constitutes the core of the earth and likely is the cause of the induced magnetic field around our earth, protecting it from the sun. Mars does not have a liquid iron core, and therefore no field, ergo no atmosphere that supports life and a brutal climate.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
October 30, 2014 2:28 pm

One more time: it is not how long the reversal lasted [hundreds of years], but how long the field was very low [thousands of year] that matters. This is the reality. Your ill-founded ad-homs [here and elsewhere] do you no glory, just puts you in the same category as other foulmouthed trolls of which we have so many [so you are in good company].

October 29, 2014 9:36 pm

Perhaps the clearest indication that the climate is not influenced directly or indirectly by the Earth’s magnetic field is the Laschamp Excursion [~39,000 years ago], when the magnetic field went to near zero strength and reversed polarity http://www.leif.org/EOS/Laschamp-Excursion-Climate.pdf

Jurgen
Reply to  lsvalgaard
October 30, 2014 6:34 am

Thanks for this link a few posts up (there is no reply button there):
http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s8454.pdf
Although I am not into HD or MHD, I think I got the central message, which to me goes something like: “due to our specific Earth conditions the magnetic and electric field do appear to be the two sides of the same coin, but generally in the cosmos out there they are not”. If so I may feel a bit wiser now, all the while trying to avoid the Dunning-Kruger effect. Though that may be in vain, as we all are “confident idiots”. David Dunning himself states it here:
http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/confident-idiots-92793/

TRM
Reply to  lsvalgaard
October 30, 2014 1:13 pm

That was only a 400-500 year event. Would that have been long enough at the depth of an ice age to have a measurable effect?

Reply to  TRM
October 30, 2014 1:46 pm

According to the paper the event was at least about 7 times as long [from 39ka to 42kw]:
http://www.leif.org/research/Laschamp-even-Temp.png

Catherine Ronconi
Reply to  TRM
October 30, 2014 1:57 pm

IMO, the 39-41 kya estimate is a dating range, not an estimate of duration.
Measurement of the actual reversal itself shows only 250 years, within a transition period of ~440 years:
http://phys.org/news/2012-10-extremely-reversal-geomagnetic-field-climate.html

Reply to  TRM
October 30, 2014 2:02 pm

The dating range from 1990 to 2010 is a duration of 20 years. This is how you convert a range to a duration: subtract the early date from the later date.
The reversal as such is not important as the climate would not know about the sign of the field. What is important is how long the field was really low and hence how long the cosmic ray flux was really high. But, as I said, people like you would seek far and long for invalid excuses.

Catherine Ronconi
Reply to  TRM
October 30, 2014 2:23 pm

You aren’t even seeking far and wide to avoid facing reality, but merely refusing to read studies which show your cherished misconceptions false. How can you call yourself a scientist when you refuse to face objective reality?
The observed fact is that the reversal lasted only hundreds of years, not the thousands that you incorrectly imagined, apparently from failing to understand what you read about dating.
The sooner NASA cuts off your funding, the better. Your “work” and fixed, baseless opinions are a prime example of how totally twisted government funded science has become. I’m reminded or your former refusal on this blog to correct an obvious error about Icelandic volcano dating and of your efforts to force colleagues to accept your man-made climate change supporting mutilation of historical SSN counts. This is not science but advocacy. You should be ashamed.

Catherine Ronconi
Reply to  TRM
October 30, 2014 2:31 pm

While you don’t want to read the paper, others might. Here is the link and the abstract. Clearly, the commenter was right and you were wrong:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X12003421
Earth and Planetary Science Letters
Volumes 351–352, 15 October 2012, Pages 54–69
Dynamics of the Laschamp geomagnetic excursion from Black Sea sediments
N.R. Nowaczyka, , ,
H.W. Arza, b,
U. Franka,
J. Kinda, c,
B. Plessena
Abstract
Investigated sediment cores from the southeastern Black Sea provide a high-resolution record from mid latitudes of the Laschamp geomagnetic polarity excursion. Age constraints are provided by 16 AMS 14C ages, identification of the Campanian Ignimbrite tephra (39.28±0.11 ka), and by detailed tuning of sedimentologic parameters of the Black Sea sediments to the oxygen isotope record from the Greenland NGRIP ice core. According to the derived age model, virtual geomagnetic pole (VGP) positions during the Laschamp excursion persisted in Antarctica for an estimated 440 yr, making the Laschamp excursion a short-lived event with fully reversed polarity directions. The reversed phase, centred at 41.0 ka, is associated with a significant field intensity recovery to 20% of the preceding strong field maximum at ∼50 ka. Recorded field reversals of the Laschamp excursion, lasting only an estimated ∼250 yr, are characterized by low relative paleointensities (5% relative to 50 ka). The central, fully reversed phase of the Laschamp excursion is bracketed by VGP excursions to the Sargasso Sea (∼41.9 ka) and to the Labrador Sea (∼39.6 ka). Paleomagnetic results from the Black Sea are in excellent agreement with VGP data from the French type locality which facilitates the chronological ordering of the non-superposed lavas that crop out at Laschamp–Olby. In addition, VGPs between 34 and 35 ka reach low northerly to equatorial latitudes during a clockwise loop, inferred to be the Mono lake excursion.

Reply to  TRM
October 30, 2014 2:36 pm

As I said: it is not how long the field was reversed [hundreds of year] that is important, but how long the field was very low [thousands of year]. You seem to have missed that I as the first posted a link to the paper for people to read [and not just the abstract].

Catherine Ronconi
Reply to  TRM
October 30, 2014 2:44 pm

OK, it was lower longer, but even the abstract says it recovered rapidly to 20% of the previous very high reading. What would matter would be how long the 10Be readings changed as a result of the reversal, as those are indicative of the GCR flux, which might not vary directly proportionally with the reversal process.
I apologize for calling for your funding to be cut, etc.

Reply to  TRM
October 30, 2014 2:54 pm

Accepted.
Even 20% of its value is very low. Now there are two issues:
1) Cosmic rays due to lower fields
2) Does the field itself have an influence [the current topic].
Some people say that even the small changes we see today have a significant influence, so the influence of a drastic reduction ought to be very obvious [it isn’t] for both issues.
The standard excuse is that conditions today are different from those during a glaciation. That may be so, but for it to taken seriously the excuse would have to be ‘fleshed out’. What would be the mechanism or magnitude of those different conditions, otherwise it is just ‘special pleading’. If you could convincingly explain why or how those different conditions would mask the effect of the near disappearance of the field, I would be an instant convert. Until then, the Laschamp event, for me, is strong evidence against any effect of the magnetic field of the Earth.

Reply to  TRM
October 30, 2014 3:19 pm

Considering Dr Svaalgard’s latest statement here, I note that he has not responded to the research paper which I quoted below which suggests that climate changes would not have registered in the GISP core at the time and which furthermore demonstrates via speleothem growth rates that in fact climate did alter significantly during the Laschamp event; also during other geomagnetic excursions.

Reply to  TRM
October 30, 2014 3:26 pm

I have not commented as the subject is too ‘woolly’. Suggestions, and too many ‘could’, ‘might’, etc. Nothing specific [numbers] to comment on. Usually, when one has to explain away something, it is because there is nothing there to begin with, but I’m eager to know what precise mechanism or agents would be responsible for the different responses. Just saying that things don’t add up isn’t quite good enough [for me, at least].

Jaime Jessop
Reply to  TRM
October 31, 2014 2:14 am

Dr Svalgaard,
You say “too woolly”. I think it was quite specific, but, for the avoidance of doubt, perhaps you will find this more specific:
“North Atlantic marine cores are the only archive to register Heinrich events stricto senso (i.e. the IRD layer) together with their impact on ocean circulation characteristics. . . .
The impact of Heinrich events is not limited to the North Atlantic but has a signature in mid to low latitude proxies. For instance speleothem growth rate and calcite isotopes( Kanner et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2007; Mosblech et al., 2012) indicate a southwards displacement of the intertropical convergence zone (ITCZ) which is more pronounced during stadials associated with Heinrich events than during stadials without Heinrich events. . .
In Greenland ice cores, DO events are well dated thanks to annual layer counting. For the GICC05 timescale used here, absolute ages are estimated with ∼3% uncertainty (2σ) during the glacial period (Svensson et al., 2008, and Appendix A1). A precise synchronisation between marine and ice cores during HE remains however difficult to establish due to the lack of a HE fingerprint within the Greenland ice core records. . . .
The cold and stable Greenland temperature during the entire GS-9 is further confirmed by an independent temperature reconstruction based on firn gas fractionation (δ15N, Fig.4b and Guillevic et al., 2013). Our new data therefore suggest a decoupling between stable, cold Greenland temperatures and changes in the climate of the mid latitude source region for Greenland precipitation.”
http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/10/1179/2014/cpd-10-1179-2014-print.pdf
This basically says to me that the Heinrich events, though associated with shifting climate and weather patterns further south, did not affect the cold stable climate further north in Greenland. Therefore the GISP cores, as traditionally analysed, do not show evidence for climate change events in lower latitudes. We have to rely upon other proxies, e.g. speleothems. Your contention that there is no evidence for climate change associated with the Laschamp Excursion, relying primarily as it does upon GISP core analysis, is therefore brought into doubt and, indeed, research has shown that speleothem growth ceased during the Laschamp Excursion.

Reply to  TRM
October 31, 2014 3:53 am

Jaime, there are other temperature records, e.g. from Antarctica:
http://www.leif.org/research/Vostok-Ice-Core-Data.png
that do not show anything special happening during the Laschamp event.

Jaime Jessop
Reply to  lsvalgaard
October 31, 2014 9:46 am

But then again, Dr Svalgaard, Antarctic ice cores show nothing like the dramatic abrupt climatic fluctuations which are evident in the Greenland cores, so perhaps it is no surprise that they fail to register the far more modest climatic fluctuations which one might expect to be associated with the Laschamp Excursion.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/3cores.png

Reply to  Jaime Jessop
October 31, 2014 10:12 pm

It looks to me that none of the records show any correlation with the Laschamp event.

Roger Dewhurst
October 29, 2014 10:35 pm

We cannot neglect the effect of the earth’s magnetic field, in direction or magnitude. Chaned in direction are so raid that they are recorded on maps! Geological and geophysical evidence demonstrates repeated reversals of the earth’s magnetism. Ipso facto the earth’s magnetic field goes through a null point. Svensmark has something to say about the magnetic field and climate. Listen up.

Reply to  Roger Dewhurst
October 29, 2014 10:40 pm

That the Earth’s field is changing is a fact and is not neglected. Svensmark’s ideas have not panned out as hoped by so many.

Bill Jamison
October 29, 2014 10:35 pm

The author seems to be confused. “NASA said in September 2013 that we were within 3 to 4 months of a polar magnetic reversal.” – OF THE SUN not the earth. It flips every cycle. From the same link: “The sun’s magnetic field changes polarity approximately every 11 years. It happens at the peak of each solar cycle as the sun’s inner magnetic dynamo re-organizes itself. The coming reversal will mark the midpoint of Solar Cycle 24. Half of “solar max” will be behind us, with half yet to come.”
That has NOTHING to do with the relatively new claim that the earth’s magnetic field may flip “soon” (geologically speaking) and that in the past it has flipped in as short of a period as 100 years or so.
http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2014/10/14/earths-magnetic-field-could-flip-within-a-human-lifetime/
So am I confused or is the author?

Reply to  Bill Jamison
October 29, 2014 10:40 pm

The author, but that does not deter people from lapping this up.

Jay Turberville
Reply to  Bill Jamison
October 30, 2014 9:36 am

I thought it odd and followed the link myself. Seems like a pretty major goof to me. Big and careless enough that I stopped reading the article.

icouldnthelpit
Reply to  Bill Jamison
October 30, 2014 1:10 pm

[Wasted effort by a banned commenter. Deleted. -mod]

Boyfromtottenham
October 29, 2014 11:00 pm

Hi from Oz. Tim, how does the fact that water is a polar molecule fit into the magnetic / electric idea? (I see the comments about solar electric vs magnetic solar fields, but magnetic fields induce electric currents, so a solar magnetic effect may well cause electric effects, hence my question.) I cannot believe that our atmosphere, with so much water vapour, exposed to so much electrical and magnetic field activity, is not affected significantly by all this, but I have no idea why or how.
Regards,

Tanner
Reply to  Boyfromtottenham
October 30, 2014 2:11 am

Have a look at the work of Italian scientist Pier Luigi Ighina and his study of atoms. He found a way to slow down atoms so that he could study them. He noticed that there were different types of atoms including Magnetic atoms. He wrote a book in Italian called “La scoperta dell’atomo magnetico” (translation – the discovery of the magnetic atom”). His theory differs from main stream scientists who “excite” atoms and end up studying already “excited” atoms. The scientists smashing atoms together in the hadron collider do not understand the implications of what they are doing which could be very dangerous.
Pier Luigi Ighina also had a theory about the magnetic interaction between the sun and the earth with magnetic particles travelling from the sun to the earth and from the earth to the sun in a spiral motion. Also have a look at the work of Edward Leedscanlin on magnetism, again not a “main stream” scientist but an interesting alternative viewpoint.

Dr. Strangelove
Reply to  Boyfromtottenham
October 31, 2014 4:45 am

“how does the fact that water is a polar molecule fit into the magnetic / electric idea?… I cannot believe that our atmosphere, with so much water vapour, exposed to so much electrical and magnetic field activity, is not affected significantly by all this, but I have no idea why or how.”
Good point. Try this at home. Turn on your empty microwave oven and see if you can heat the air inside it. The magnetic field strength of microwave oven is 47 microtesla. A strong geomagnetic storm is 0.25 microtesla. If microwave oven has no detectable effect on water vapor in air, solar wind has less detectable effect.

Boyfromtottenham
October 29, 2014 11:05 pm

P.S. Tim, have you seen Vukevic’s recent article on the sun’s magnetic cycle vs earth length of day correlation at Tallbloke’s Talkshop?

October 29, 2014 11:08 pm

I am reminded of this image.
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/531155main_terrestrial-atmosphere-itmProcesses_946-710.jpg
Beyond this are Flux Transfer Events that happen at the magnetosphere where the earth sun flux tube crosses the boundary. Joe Borovsky suggests that the solar wind is made of many flux tubes. Voyager sees these tubes extending all the way to the heliosphere.

Editor
October 29, 2014 11:20 pm

Dr. Tim, always good to hear from you. However, I disagree with your assertion that:

What causes that? Van Loon and Labitzke showed correlations between sunspots and El Nino, but what was the mechanism?

Not true. What Van Loon and Labitzke claim to have shown are correlations between sunspots and El Nino IN THE OUTPUT OF A CLIMATE MODEL. Their work, as near as I can tell, didn’t use any data at all, just the output of the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis climate models.
The problem is that the climate models are linear, and they have solar flux as part of their input. As a result of their linearity, whatever you input to the reanalysis models is very likely to appear in the output of the reanalysis models … so please, don’t repeat Van Loon and Labitzke’s error of thinking that climate reanalysis models are a reliable guide to climate interactions in the real, non-linear, actual world we live in.
In a number of places, VL&L are claiming correlations between sunspots and temperature of 0.70, 0.80, and even 0.90 … perhaps you believe that kind of claim without running the numbers yourself. Me, I know that such correlations in climate datasets are un-heard of, particularly regarding sunspots. So I’d need to see their data and code and run the math myself to know how they got it so wrong … but fortunately for me, they haven’t archived code as used or data as used, so I’m spared the problem.
In any case, it’s only an analysis of climate model outputs, so it is meaningless whether or not they did the math correctly.
Finally, let me say that I’ve long held that the electromagnetic aspect of the weather is the least understood of all six of the main climate subsystems (ocean, atmosphere, cryosphere, lithosphere, biosphere, and electromagnetosphere). So my thanks for highlighting this mysterious and important corner of the weather and climate.
My best to you,
w.

Khwarizmi
October 29, 2014 11:52 pm

The north needle on a compass always points to the southern magnetic pole.
http://www.physics.org/article-questions.asp?id=65
So reversal must have already happened.

October 30, 2014 12:53 am

It has been noted that long term global temperature anomaly correlates to the changes in the rate of the Earth’s rotation. Now for the first time, in this paper
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01071375v2/document
it is clearly shown that the bi-decadal rate of change in the Earth’s rotation, directly follows solar magnetic polarity oscillations (all data and method available for an easy replication)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-LOD.gif
“The Earth’s rotation acceleration is concurrent with decay of the even and continues during rise of the odd cycles. The rotation deceleration is concurrent with decay of the odd and continues during rise of the even cycles ; in other words change in the rate of the Earth’s rotation follows the hemispheric sunspots’ magnetic (Hale) cycle.”

Phil B.
October 30, 2014 1:02 am

I have seen, and conducted, experiments causing high and low-pressure vortices in both water and air with nothing but DC current and a magnet. And wouldn’t you know it, when you reverse the polarity of the magnet (but keep the current flow the same) the direction of the vortices changes direction (just as you’d expect from electrical engineering 101).
The brilliance of this is that the vortices correspond precisely with the direction of rotation observed in the earth’s atmosphere for high and low pressure systems in their respective hemispheres. Of course, without the electric current, absolutely nothing happens in either water or atmosphere. A problem for those claiming magnetism without its electrical component (a clear sign of people not understanding electromagnetism).

Ron Ginzler
Reply to  Phil B.
October 30, 2014 5:25 pm

Interesting, but isn’t the direction of rotation of systems in the atmosphere already explained by the Coriolis force?

October 30, 2014 1:17 am

The Laschamp Event and Earth’s Wandering Magnetic Field
Earth’s magnetic field offers protection to satellites and all electronic communications on Earth from GCRs and the solar wind. The Laschamp Event shows clearly on the 10Be record and does correspond to a DO event, but links to climate are tenuous. The main risks of falling magnetic field are to satellites etc.

Reply to  Euan Mearns
October 30, 2014 6:07 am

Spacecraft charging creating high potentials between different structures on a satellite is the biggest danger to them, apart from debris of course.
The source of these charges mostly come from the Sun or sometimes charged devices and propellant. But yes the magnetosphere plays a big part in reducing the background space potential.
Other ways are to use plasma devices such as contactors, cathodes or ion engines. There are quite a few groups studying spacecraft plasma interactions and how to mitigate them for deep space or interplanetary missions.

October 30, 2014 2:45 am

It almost seems inconceivable that solar electromagnetic activity does not drive changes in our coupled ocean-atmosphere system. The fact that we have failed thus far to positively identify the (probably numerous) mechanisms involved is no excuse for dismissing those interconnections as irrelevant. Much progress has recently been made in this direction and I am sure continued research, now that CO2-mania is at last beginning to subside, will reveal just how important electromagnetic effects upon our weather and climate are.
Let’s face it. Earth is basically an inert speck of rock with a weak internally generated geomagnetic field circling a huge electromagnetic heat source, blessed with a tenuous atmosphere and a thin layer of water over 75% of the surface. The IPCC tell us that a minute amount of extra CO2 generated by human beings living on that inert speck is the main driver of climate change. When they can’t get away with that, as recently with the advent of the highly inconvenient Pause, they assert that internal climate oscillations (PDO/AMO etc.) have scuppered (temporarily) the inevitable rise in temperatures. Only very reluctantly do they admit to some external solar influence, but this as an ADDITION to internal cycles, volcanic activity and anthro CO2 forcing, completely neglecting to make the obvious connection between solar activity and internal cycles and even volcanic activity, for which there is growing evidence.
The geomagnetic field comes into play as the obvious moderator of solar electromagnetic forces. When it is weaker, obviously it will not be as efficient in shielding our upper atmosphere from the electrically charged solar wind and GCR particles – as distinct from solar electromagnetic radiation. Upper atmospheric chemistry and physical processes will thus vary and almost inevitably such variability must feed down into the lower atmosphere and thus the weather and climate systems. Of course, incident solar radiation in the form of light and UV also plays a huge part in upper atmospheric chemistry and physics. Small changes in spectral intensity – coincident with more general changes in solar activity (sunspots, frequency and strength of solar flares/CMEs, strength of solar magnetic field) – are proven to affect weather and climate.
It beggars belief that IPCC consensus driven science has so effectively stifled such research for so long that we are only now just beginning to look at our planet and its relationship with our Sun in a more mature and inclusive/holistic manner.

Reply to  Jaime
October 31, 2014 10:18 pm

The geomagnetic field comes into play as the obvious moderator of solar electromagnetic forces. When it is weaker, obviously it will not be as efficient in shielding our upper atmosphere from the electrically charged solar wind and GCR particles – as distinct from solar electromagnetic radiation.
Several problems with this:
1) the electromagnetic force manifests itself as plain sunlight, which is not modulated by the geomagnetic field.
2) the solar wind is not electrically charged. It is electrically neutral
3) you play loose with the ‘upper atmosphere’ bit. The Upper Atmosphere is not where weather and climate are.

Jaime Jessop
Reply to  lsvalgaard
November 1, 2014 2:37 am

Dr Svalgaard,
“Several problems with this:
1) the electromagnetic force manifests itself as plain sunlight, which is not modulated by the geomagnetic field.
2) the solar wind is not electrically charged. It is electrically neutral
3) you play loose with the ‘upper atmosphere’ bit. The Upper Atmosphere is not where weather and climate are.”
1. This is why I made the distinction between charged particles which do interact with a magnetic field and electromagnetic radiation which of course does not. Note however that sufficiently energetic solar UV/Gamma ionises electrically neutral upper atmospheric atoms to produce more charged particles which do interact with the magnetic field, so in this narrow sense electromagnetic radiation can be said to produce electrical effects in our upper atmosphere.
2. I pointed out this fact in another post. The solar wind is of course overall electrically neutral but it is a plasma consisting of discrete positively and negatively charged particles which interact oppositely with the geomagnetic field, as well you know. Hence the very real physical phenomena of the the Northern and Southern Lights.
3. I refer you to Sudden Stratoshperic Warming Events (SSWs) which of course do impact significantly upon lower tropospheric weather events via interactions with the upper atmospheric Jet Stream/circumpolar vortex. Furthermore, there is considerable evidence for the significant role of solar forcing in such events, particularly Lyman Alpha flux.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007JD008718/pdf

Neillusion
October 30, 2014 3:31 am

The paragraph on El Nino not affecting Canada, the front and rear car bumper analogy, and then going on to essentialy say how the mechanism works that actually does relate/effect canada is rather contradictory on my first reading.

phlogiston
October 30, 2014 3:32 am

Many of us are grateful to Leif Svalgaard for defending tirelessly against the electric universe pseudo-science which is worse than CAGW.
The near vacuum of space cannot transmit electrical field sufficient to affect planets.
I am also dubious of magnetic effects except at the top of the atmosphere. But who lives there?

Jaime Jessop
Reply to  phlogiston
October 30, 2014 6:25 am

But the Sun’s magnetic field is indeed transported far out into space via the solar wind. The distinction between electrical and magnetic fields is of course artificial – they are one and the same phenomenon, i.e. electromagnetism. So in that sense the Sun might be said to have an electrical influence on the planets. Of course, the solar wind itself is overall electrically neutral, but when it meets the (electrically generated) geomagnetic field, particles of opposite charges are deflected in different directions along the field lines, thus inducing electrical currents in the upper atmosphere and even, at times, along power lines. I quote:
“In the early 1960s, solar physicists began to realize that the solar wind carries the Sun’s magnetic field out to the far reaches of the solar system. This extension of the Sun’s magnetic field is called the interplanetary magnetic field and it can join with geomagnetic field lines originating in the polar regions of Earth. This joining of the Sun’s and Earth’s magnetic fields is called magnetic reconnection, and happens most efficiently when the two fields are anti-parallel. Through reconnection the magnetic fields of Sun and Earth become coupled together. Solar wind particles approaching Earth can enter the magnetosphere because of reconnection and then travel along the geomagnetic field lines in a corkscrew path (Figure 4–2). Positive ions and electrons follow magnetic field lines (in opposite directions) to produce what are called field-aligned currents. The solar wind and the magnetosphere form a vast electrical generator which converts the kinetic energy of solar wind particles into electrical energy. The power produced by this magnetohydrodynamic generator can exceed 10^12 watts, roughly equal to the average rate of consumption of energy in the United States today! The very complex plasmas and currents in the magnetosphere are not fully understood.

Reply to  Jaime Jessop
October 30, 2014 6:27 am

Sorry, link for above quote is: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/Curric_7-12/Chapter_4.pdf

Reply to  Jaime Jessop
October 31, 2014 11:15 pm

Your quote fails to mention ‘electromagnetism’, and in a plasma there is a very real difference between electric fields [there aren’t any] and magnetic fields [which live forever].

Reply to  Jaime Jessop
November 1, 2014 3:11 am

“Your quote fails to mention ‘electromagnetism’, and in a plasma there is a very real difference between electric fields [there aren’t any] and magnetic fields [which live forever]”
I don’t believe I did fail to mention ‘electromagnetism’. Far more crucially, you assert that there aren’t any electric fields in a plasma. You must be aware of the fact that plasmas are only ‘quasi-neutral’, i.e. there are no coulomb forces operating over macro scale distances (scale dependent on the temp/density of the plasma) but there do indeed exist within the gas areas of net negative and positive charge which generate coulomb forces (electric fields) over much shorter distances.

Reply to  Jaime Jessop
November 1, 2014 8:27 am

In your body there are positive and negative charges with electric fields between them. What is important in a plasma is how far such fields can be felt [the Debye length]. For the ionospheric plasma, that length is of the order of one millimeter, for the solar wind about ten meters. Both being negligible compared to the length scale of phenomena taking place there.
The power produced by this magnetohydrodynamic generator can exceed 10^12 watts
Which it very rarely do. Even during a geomagnetic storm the ordinary sunlight falling on the Earth has power millions of times stronger.

Jaime Jessop
Reply to  Jaime Jessop
November 1, 2014 2:44 pm

I was not questioning whether such electrical fields in a plasma were able to produce measurable effects, only your unqualified assertion that they did not exist.
The issue seems to be not whether the solar wind can generate terrestrial electrical effects via interactions with the magnetosphere but the magnitude of those effects and whether they are significant in terms of changing weather and climate.

Reply to  Jaime Jessop
November 1, 2014 2:51 pm

Jaime Jessop November 1, 2014 at 2:44 pm
I was not questioning whether such electrical fields in a plasma were able to produce measurable effects, only your unqualified assertion that they did not exist.
If you were paying attention you should have seen:
lsvalgaard October 30, 2014 at 12:12 am
“So one way or another, there is no significant persistent large-scale electric field in a plasma (collisionless or collision dominated).”
And in general, any and all comments are always about ‘effective’ variables: do they matter? There is no doubt that starlight from Sirius is adding to the global energy input to the climate, but one does not need to go around and stress [‘qualify’] that this contribution is negligible in every comment one makes.

Neillusion
October 30, 2014 3:34 am

I think that a huge moving body of water will have a serious magnetic effect too. I have not seen any information on this anywhere, Consider the old experiment with water streaming from a tap being attracted or repelled by a charged rod. Now consider the huge currents in ocean cycles, Surely they set up and/or have large magnetic effects too? Could this be part of mechanism that actually flips the earths field?

phlogiston
October 30, 2014 3:35 am

vukcevic
October 30, 2014 at 12:53 am
It has been noted that long term global temperature anomaly correlates to the changes in the rate of the Earth’s rotation. Now for the first time, in this paper
This is well-known chicken-and-egg. Of course a colder earth will rotate faster since more water is held at the poles as ice nearer the rotation axis. Temp changes LOD, not the other way around. This relationship is trivial.

Reply to  phlogiston
October 30, 2014 4:13 am

phlogiston October 30, 2014 at 3:35 am
Temp changes LOD, not the other way around. This relationship is trivial.
I am sure you would have looked at the article before commenting, here is a reminder what it stated there:
“At the current state of knowledge, the most realistic alternative is the indirect solar effect, whereby a possible mechanism could be postulated along line:
Solar activity – ocean & atmospheric temperatures – oceanic and atmospheric circulation – angular momentum exchange – Earth’s rate of rotation (LOD) – secular change in the perceived
geomagnetic field.”
Whether change is trivial or not it is different matter. Total change in LOD during last 150 years is of order of + or – 2.5 msec, of which + or – 0.5 msec or about 25% appear to be concurrent with the sunspot magnetic cycles (22 year periodicity). If translated to the temperature, it is clear that the changes associated with TSI (11 year periodicity) of + – 0.1C, it it could be concluded that the TSI is not the only solar contributor.

Reply to  phlogiston
October 30, 2014 4:17 am
Reply to  vukcevic
October 30, 2014 8:19 am

somehow it is no surprise that the LOD curve here does not match the one you peddle. The red curve is T corrected for AGW. I take it that you then agree with AGW being the main driver of temperature.

Reply to  vukcevic
October 30, 2014 11:33 am

That is a totally inaccurate statement. If you read any of content of my paper
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01071375v2/document
before dashing to post false assumptions, you would realise your folly. In my paper curves shown are the high frequency bandwidth sections for both the astronomic and geomagnetic inferred LOD changes. Further more you failed to realise that the JPL graph scale is inverted to one given by IERS
The LOD data as inferred from astronomical data is clearly identified in my paper reference. Here is comparison of two curves.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LOD-Jpl_Vuk.gif
Your statements are, by great majority of the readers, taken as accurate for granted, so it would be nice if you check before you post derogatory comments.
Thanks .

Reply to  vukcevic
October 30, 2014 11:35 am

sentence
“Further more you failed to realise that the JPL graph scale is inverted to one given by IERS” should be ignored

Reply to  vukcevic
October 30, 2014 1:57 pm

Regardless of your machinations and excuses, all I note is that your LOD curve does not match any of the curves in your latest plot:
http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failing-20.png
I’m not interested in further excuses why not.

Reply to  vukcevic
October 30, 2014 2:35 pm

Large number of readers of this blog know what the LOD time line looks like, and they are not going to fall in for what is shown above by Dr. Svalgaard.
For benefit of other readers:
“Data Analysis
Extracting higher frequencies (shorter periods) can be achieved by using any of the known high pass filters. However, for the convenience and benefit of the easy reproducibility, the 21 year (cantered) average is subtracted from the ‘raw ’ geomagnetic data.The obtained difference represents higher frequencies.”
Theyare the LOD’s bidecadal : oscillations
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-LOD.gif
Any one can reproduce the graph, data and method are given
It is totally inappropriate to grossly misrepresent what is written in the paper and so mislead readers who have not found time to read paper or analyse the data.
To go to such lengths to cover a folly, I am simply astonished !
Perhaps implications of what I found are far greater than I assumed, else why would one risk the outstanding scientific reputation in such a manner..
I shall not respond to any further of Dr. Svalgaard’s comments on this matter,.

Reply to  vukcevic
October 30, 2014 2:45 pm

Title of the paper is:
Evidence of length of day (LOD) bidecadal variability concurrent with the solar magnetic cycles
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/file/index/docid/1071375/filename/LOD-bidecadal-variability.pdf

Reply to  vukcevic
October 30, 2014 3:00 pm

the 21 year (cantered) average is subtracted from the ‘raw ’ geomagnetic data.
The LOD is not ‘geomagnetic data’.

Reply to  vukcevic
October 31, 2014 6:39 am

Meant to go here:
Circulation within the Earth’s outer the liquid is not only source of the geomagnetic field
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/JC.gif
but also is by far the largest long term contributor to the change in the Earth’s rate of rotation known as LOD (more of this can be found in the paper, where I show that it follows change in the solar cycle magnetic polarity).
There you go, now you know that there is a direct link between the Earth’s magnetic field (subject of this thread) and the Length of the Day, everyone can learn a bit here and there.

phlogiston
October 30, 2014 3:40 am

Here is an illustration of why rotation speeds up if mass moves nearer the rotation axis (e.g. LOD is shorter when earth is colder with more polar ice):

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  phlogiston
October 30, 2014 4:36 am

But then you must address a few things:
The North pole (over the Arctic ocean) & the south pole (sea ice around Antarctica) gain ice at two different times.
And, perhaps more significantly, the change in mass must account for the freezing of floating ice above the water, but since the frozen ice floats, you are not adding mass but changing its density.
On land around the arctic, you’d have to estimate the height of snow & ice and the latitude of that mass. So all the mass (max of 1 meter on average ?) would be added south of latitude 70.

Khwarizmi
Reply to  phlogiston
October 30, 2014 7:10 am

Multi-decadal changes to Length of Day (-LOD) occur 7 years before changes in temperature.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y2787e/y2787e03.htm
A lot of people get their cause and effect backwards when trying to explain that particular correlation:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/25/solar-terrestrial-power-update/#comment-845232

Reply to  Khwarizmi
October 30, 2014 3:23 pm

Thanks for the LOD comments link
Extract:
DYNAMICS OF CLIMATIC AND GEOPHYSICAL INDICES
Extract:
“When detrended, the graphs of -LOD and dT are very similar in shape, and it is clear that -LOD runs several years ahead of dT, especially in its maxima. Shifting the -LOD curve by 6 years to the right (Figure 2.2b) results in almost complete coincidence of the corresponding maxima of the early 1870s, late 1930s, and middle of 1990s (Klyashtorin et al. 1998).
The similarity in the dynamics of detrended -LOD and dT and ACI indices is clear: Large fragments of the curves are much alike not only in general shape, but in detail as well. In general, the long-term dynamics of both dT and -LOD have roughly a 60 year periodicity. The global climate system was reported to oscillate with a period of 65-70 years since 1850 (Schlesinger and Ramankutty 1994). The same 60-70 year periodicity has also been characteristic for the long-term dynamics of some climatic and biological indices for the last 150 years (Klyashtorin 1998).
Similarity between the -LOD and dT dynamics makes it possible to assume the existence of some common factors inducing and controlling the observable synchrony in geophysical (LOD) and climatic (dT) indices variation.”
My paper shows direct correlation between dLOD and solar magnetic cycle: thus the equation is:
Global temperature dT ~ LOD, dLOD ~ solar magnetic cycle.
No surprise about the fierce attack by totally inappropriate misrepresentation on the paper demonstrating clearly and unambiguously the second half of the equation..

Reply to  Khwarizmi
October 30, 2014 3:49 pm

Regardless of the inaccuracies, the main problem is that it is inappropriate to assign a sign to the sunspot number and thus fabricate an artificial 22-yr cycle.

Reply to  Khwarizmi
October 30, 2014 4:08 pm

it is inappropriate to assign a sign to the sunspot number…. ??!! Astonishing !
Another attack by a further falsehood !
Paper quote:
“Even and odd cycles’ numbers are positive scalars, but here for purpose of clarity are plotted on the y-axis in the opposite directions.”
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Fig2.gif
What kind of sign is talking about?

Reply to  Khwarizmi
October 30, 2014 4:32 pm

See for yourself. Perhaps the cosine is also not negative.

Reply to  Khwarizmi
October 30, 2014 4:51 pm

Hilarious!
Cosine function oscillates between -1 and +1 as shown on the right hand scale, maths for 14 year olds.

A C Osborn
October 30, 2014 3:47 am

Tim Cullen of the MalagaBay Forum has some very interesting articles on Maganetism, Atmospherics and Astrophysics.
See
http://malagabay.wordpress.com/

Neillusion
October 30, 2014 3:50 am

The mass that accumulates at the poles has been thrown off’ from all over the surface. The ice skater moving her arms in to speed revolution rate analogy does not apply here in my opinion. Water molecules thrown off will lose their angular momentum energy in other ways, namely air turbulence/friction, and not ‘carry’ it to the poles to increase rotation rate of the earth on its axis. Just thinking out loud.

Reply to  Neillusion
October 30, 2014 4:27 am

In my view during the holocene epoch, the largest single contributor to the changes in the rate of the Earth’s rotation is the Indian Ocean’s area monsoon.

cedarhill
October 30, 2014 4:06 am

The proposal, for a change, fits well into the common sense experience of folks. If one imagines a ballon filled with any liquid and you but a spin on it and then you push along a latitude, you’ll have all sorts of changes in the flow(s). Varying the pushes and the latitudes makes makes even more changes. Some changes may be large enough to measure, some may be cyclical and some simply unpredictable — a loose definition of the weather as a “chaos” system. If views the Solar system as a fluid dynamics system (solar wind, the fluid nature of the Sun, the fluid nature of the atmosphere,etc.) coupled with magentic forces then the solar scientist just might make a contribution to understanding the weather.

Neillusion
October 30, 2014 5:16 am

A teaspoon, just five grams, of electrons seperated from the equivalent positive charge, at a distance of 93 milliion miles from each other would have a force of approx 100 000N between them. That equates to a weight of approx 10 000Kg in earth mass ‘force’ terms, this over the distance of 93million miles! 99.999999% or more of the universe is plasma – charged particles.

October 30, 2014 5:43 am

Arctic region is under continuous impact from geomagnetic electric current inductions
“NASA’s fleet of THEMIS spacecraft discovered a flux rope pumping a 650,000 Amp current into the Arctic. “The satellites have found evidence for magnetic ropes connecting Earth’s upper atmosphere directly to the Sun,” says Dave Sibeck, project scientist for the mission at the Goddard Space Flight Center. “We believe that solar wind particles flow in along these ropes, providing energy for geomagnetic storms”. Even more impressive was the substorm’s power. Angelopoulos estimates the total energy of the two-hour event at five hundred thousand billion (5 x 1014) Joules. That’s approximately equivalent to the energy of a magnitude 5.5 earthquake (Dr. S equates the energy impact equivalent to M6).
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/203795main_FluxPower_400.jpg

Reply to  vukcevic
October 30, 2014 7:48 am

As usual you have no sense of perspective. The energy received from the Sun simply by sunlight during those two hours is 5 million times more.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
October 30, 2014 9:26 am

As usual you have no sense of perspective.
Hi doc, that is a rather mild reprimand, no offense taken, just keeping things in perspective.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
October 30, 2014 9:27 am

or lack thereof in your case

Yirgach
Reply to  vukcevic
October 30, 2014 8:58 am

THEMIS observations confirm for the first time that magnetic reconnection in the magnetotail triggers the onset of substorms. Substorms are the sudden violent eruptions of space weather that release solar energy trapped in the Earth’s magnetic field.

October 30, 2014 5:45 am

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

Tim Ball
October 30, 2014 6:53 am

So, the question remains, how do you explain the changing upper level wind patterns?

Reply to  Tim Ball
October 30, 2014 7:43 am

Hi Dr. Bell
To change upper level wind patterns increased concentration of aerosols is required. These are often provided by the Kamchatka volcanic eruptions, which are carried into stratosphere on the plume of warm air (case of sudden stratospheric warming SSW). The particles are usually charged by friction (lightning is often seen within eruptions) and further ionised in the upper atmosphere by impact of GCR’s and possibly CME’s.
Velocity and movement of the charged particles is affected by Arctic magnetic field which has two areas of high intensity (west of Hudson Bay and Central Siberia)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NH.gif
eventually resulting in the split of polar vortex, changing upper level wind patterns.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Stv.jpg
see also NASA animation
http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/36000/36972/npole_gmao_200901-02.mov
Kamchatka volcanoes and SSW link

ren
Reply to  vukcevic
October 30, 2014 12:44 pm

Kamchatka volcano Shiveluch generated on Wednesday, two powerful explosions – TASS informs, citing information from MES.
According to information received from the satellites and seismic stations, the height of a column of ash from the volcano Shiveluch reached 9.5 thousand meters above sea level. Moves with the wind in the north-east.

ren
Reply to  vukcevic
October 30, 2014 11:32 pm

The current sulfur dioxide concentration of the Bárðarbunga.
http://en.vedur.is/photos/eldgos_calpuff/141030_0000_31.jpg

ren
Reply to  Tim Ball
October 30, 2014 8:52 am

“The ability to predict times of greater galactic cosmic ray (GCR) fluxes is important for reducing the hazards caused by these particles to satellite communications, aviation, or astronauts. The 11-year solar-cycle variation in cosmic rays is highly correlated with the strength of the heliospheric magnetic field. Differences in GCR flux during alternate solar cycles yield a 22-year cycle, known as the Hale Cycle, which is thought to be due to different particle drift patterns when the northern solar pole has predominantly positive (denoted as qA>0 cycle) or negative ( qA0 cycles than for qA0 and more sharply peaked for qA<0. In this study, we demonstrate that properties of the large-scale heliospheric magnetic field are different during the declining phase of the qA0 solar cycles, when the difference in GCR flux is most apparent. This suggests that particle drifts may not be the sole mechanism responsible for the Hale Cycle in GCR flux at Earth. However, we also demonstrate that these polarity-dependent heliospheric differences are evident during the space-age but are much less clear in earlier data: using geomagnetic reconstructions, we show that for the period of 1905 – 1965, alternate polarities do not give as significant a difference during the declining phase of the solar cycle. Thus we suggest that the 22-year cycle in cosmic-ray flux is at least partly the result of direct modulation by the heliospheric magnetic field and that this effect may be primarily limited to the grand solar maximum of the space-age.”
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014SoPh..289..407T

1 2 3
Verified by MonsterInsights