UPDATE: A good photo of one of the Russian stations has been found, see below after the “read more” link.
As most readers know by now, the problematic GISTEMP global temperature anomaly plot for October is heavily weighted by temperatures from weather stations in Russia.
GISTEMP 11-12-08 – Click for larger image
Like in the USA, weather stations tend to be distributed according to population density, with the more populated western portion of Russia having more weather stations than the less populated eastern areas such as Siberia. To illustrate this, here is a plot of Russian Weather Station locations from the University of Melbourne:
Click picture for larger image, source image is here
Interestingly, the greatest magnitude of the GISTEMP anomaly plot for October is in these mostly unpopulated areas where the weather station density is the lowest. While I was pondering this curiosity, one of the WUWT readers, Corky Boyd, did a little research and passed this along in email:
…Posters at Watts Up have commented on the ongoing consistently high anomalous temperatures from Russia. I have noticed this too. In light of the erroneously posted data for October, I took a look at the monthly NCDC climate reports back to January 2007. By my eyeball estimate the results from Russia are almost all on the high side. . Some I classified as very highs are massively high. Of the 21 months reported, only 2 appeared to be below average.
Category 2007 2008 (9 months)
Very high 6 4
High 3 1
Average 2 3
Low 0 1
Very Low 1 0
Is there a way to validate or invalidate GISS data by comparing it to RISS? Does it strike you as odd that the verifiably erroneous data has shown up in the same area that was suspect in the first place? Could there be a pattern?
Corky also sent along a series of images depicting global near surface and ocean temperature anomalies from NOAA. Here is the most recent one from September 2008:
I was curious if indeed there was any pattern to the Russian anomaly, so I decided to animate the last year and a half worth of images. You can see this animation below. It is about 1 megabyte in size, so please be patient while it downloads.
Click for full sized animation
What I found interesting was that the January 2007 anomaly (the last time we had a “global heat wave”) was primarily in the northern Russian and Asian. According to January 2007 UAH satellite anomaly data, the Northern Hemisphere had a whopping anomaly of +1.08°C and the “northern extent” was even greater at +1.27°C, the largest anomaly ever in the Northern Extent dataset
Curiously though, the very next month, the Russian anomaly virtually disappears and is replacing with cooling, though a sharp boundary to warming now exists in Asia. It was as if somebody threw a switch in Russia.
Click for larger images
In March 2008, a very large positive anomaly returned in Russia, and again in April evaporated with the same abruptness as the Jan-Feb 2007 transition. Again almost as if a switch was thrown.
Click for larger images
Such abrupt repeated changes don’t seem fully natural to me, particularly when they occur over the same geographic location twice. I realize that two events don’t make a trend, but it is curious, given that we now have had a problem with Russian weather data again that caused GISS to announce the “hottest October on record”.
I also noticed that in the animation from the anomaly maps, there does not seem to be much of an anomaly in the summer months.
This made me wonder what some of those weather stations in Russia might be like. So I went to the Russian Meteorological Institute website at http://www.meteo.ru/english/
I know from John Goetz work as well as this artcle in Nature that Russian weather stations had been closing with regularity due to the trickle down effects of collapse in the former Soviet Union. Though some new ones are being built by outside agencies, such as this one sponsored by NOAA in Tiksi, Russia.
Click for a larger image
What I found interesting in the NOAA press release on Tiksi, was this image, showing weather stations clustered around the Arctic:
Click for a larger image
The interesting thing is that all these stations are manned and heated. The instruments appear to be “on” the buildings themselves, though it is hard to tell. One wonders how much of the building heat in this tiny island of humanity makes it to the sensors. The need for a manned weather station in the Arctic always comes with a need for heat.
I was hoping my visit to the Russian Meteorological institute website might have some particulars on the remaining weather stations that have not been closed. I didn’t find that, but what I did find was a study they posted that seems to point to a significant warm temperature anomaly in Russia during winters between 1961 to 1998:
Fig. 1. Linear trend coefficient (days/10 years) in the series of days with abnormally high air temperatures in winter (December-February), 1961-1998.
From the Russian study they write:
For the winter period 1961-1998, most of the stations under considerations exhibit a tendency for fewer minimum temperature extremes. Maximum (in absolute value) coefficients of the linear trend were obtained in the south of the country and in eastern Yakutia.
Whenever I read about elevated minimum temperatures, I tend to suspect some sort of human influences such as UHI, station siting, or irrigation (humidity) which tend to affect Tmin more than Tmax.
In Northern Russia Siberia, I wouldn’t expect much in the way of irrigation. So that leaves station siting and UHI as possible biases. UHI seemed doubtful, given that many of these Russian Stations in Siberia are in remote areas and small towns.
So I decided to put Google Earth to work to see what I could see. One of the stations mentioned in a recent post at Climate Audit cited the station of Verhojansk, Russia, which has temperatures conveniently online here at Weather Underground.
From the Navy Meteorological exercise I found that Verhojansk has a wide variance in temperature:
Verkhojansk is located in a treeless shallow valley. There is snow on the ground during winter months; it melts in the spring. Verhojansk experiences the coldest winter temperatures of any official weather station outside of Antarctica. Verhojansk has Earth’s most extreme temperature contrast (65oC) between summer and winter. Which of the following indirect factors contribute to this extreme seasonal variation?
From the GHCN station inventory file at NCDC I found that Verhojansk, Russia had a lat/lon of 67.55 133.38 which when I put it in Google Earth, ended up in a mud flat. The Google Maps link from Weather Underground was no better, also off in a field.
Looking in NCDC’s MMS station database yeilded better luck, and I found a more precise lat/lon of 67.55,133.38333 There was very little other helpful information there on the station.
The station appeared to be located in town, though I have no way of verifying the exact location. The lat/lon may be imprecise. But something curious popped out at me as I was scanning the Google Earth image of Verhojansk looking for what might be a weather station – it looks like pipes running across the surface:
Click for larger image
These “pipes” appear to go all over town. Here is a closer view, note the arrow to what I think might be the weather station location based on the fencing, objects on the ground that could be rain gauges or shelters, and what looks like an instrument tower:
Click for larger image
I was curious about what these pipes could be, it certainly didn’t look like oil pipelines, and why where they so close to houses and building and seem to network all over town. Doing a little research on Russian history, I found my answer in the pervasive “central planning” thinking that characterized Russian government and infrastructure. It’s called “District Heating“
From Wikipedia:
District heating (less commonly called teleheating) is a system for distributing heat generated in a centralized location for residential and commercial heating requirements such as space heating and water heating.
But for Russia there was this caveat:
Russia
In most Russian cities, district-level combined heat and power plants (Russian: ТЭЦ, Тепло-электро централь) produce more than 50 % of the nation’s electricity and simultaneously provide hot water for neighbouring city blocks. They mostly use coal and oil-powered steam turbines for cogeneration of heat. Now, gas turbines and combined cycle designs are beginning to be widely used as well. A Soviet-era approach of using very large central stations to heat large districts of a big city or entire small cities is fading away as due to inefficiency, much heat is lost in the piping network because of leakages and lack of proper thermal insulation [10].
I should also point out that district heating is not limited to Russia, but is in many northern European countries. It seems quite prevalent in cold Euro-climates, and even extends into Great Britain.
So I searched a bit more, and found some pictures of what Russian district heating looks like from the ground. Here is one from Picasaweb from somebody’s trip to Russia:

Click for source image.
Note the pipes in the photo above are not insulated.
I also found a very interesting picture of steam pipes, also uninsulated, from a trip report to the “hot zone” of Chernobyl:

And finally a picture of Krasnoyarsk thermal power station Number 1 that has recently been in the news, according to Reuters due to a burst steam pipe:

Click for larger image – Note the pipes coming out to the left of the power station. You can see steam pipes around the city in this Google Maps view here.
So all this begs the question:
If Russian weather stations are located in cities that have this district heating plan, and a good percentage of the pipes are uninsulated, how much of the waste heat from the pipes ends up creating a local micro-climate of warmth?
Remember when I said that the NOAA map anomalies centered over Russia seemed to be prevalent in winter but not summer? It stands to reason that as winter temperature gets colder, more waste heat is dumped out of these inefficient systems to meet the demand. Basically, we have an active UHI situation in the city that increases in output as temperatures drop.
In the areal photos above of Verhojansk, it appears that some pipes are insulated (white, what appears to be main lines) while others are rust brown, and appear near buildings and dwellings.
I got to thinking about why these pipes might be uninsulated. First there is the classic inefficiency and carelessness of Soviet workmanship, but another thought occurred to me: Russian people might like it that way. Why? Well imagine a place where you walk to the market every day, even in subzero temperatures. Since many of these pipes seem to follow streets and sidewalks, wouldn’t it be a more pleasant walk in winter next to a nice toasty steam pipe?
Steve Mcintyre wrote about this station at Climate Audit, citing a puzzle in the data, here is an excerpt of his post:
Verhojansk
Now there are many puzzles in GHCN adjustments, to say the least, and these adjustments are inhaled into GISS. Verhojansk is in the heart of the Siberian “hot spot”, presently a balmy minus 22 deg C. The graphics below compare GISS dset0 in the most recent scribal version to GISS dset 2 (showing identity other than small discrepancies at the start of the segment); the right compares GISS dset0 to the GHCN-Daily Average.
Over the past 20 years, the GISS version (presumably obtained from GHCN monthly) has risen 1.7 deg C (!) relative to the average taken from GHCN Daily results.
Left- GISS dset 2 minus Giss dset0 [[7]]; fight – Giss minus GHCN Daily
What causes this? I have no idea.
Maybe it’s the steam pipes. We need to send somebody to Russia to find out. Of the many station lat/lons I looked at, Verhojansk was the only one I found with enough Google Earth resolution to see the steam pipes. Maybe the heart of our Russian temperature anomaly lies in central heating.
George Costanza could be right.
UPDATE: The photo below shows the Verhojansk Meteorological station and it’s instruments. Hat tip to Jeff C. for the photo below:

Direct URL to the photo above here
Note the cable going to the Stevenson Screen suggesting automated readings. Also note the vertical plume at left.
The station can be seen from Google Earth here
Sponsored IT training links:
We offer guaranteed success in 1z0-050 exam with JN0-304 online training. Also get free download link for HP0-S26 exam.














Harold Ambler (06:34:24) :
Peter Taylor (12:46:47) :
Landscheidt was pretty spot on wasn’t he. Just don’t expect Leif or other conventional scientists to admit it.
He has been followed at NASA by some science that reflected his own-
“Apparent Relations Between Solar Activity and Solar Tides Caused by the Planets.” Ching-Cheh Hung, Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio
http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/Citations.aspx?id=330
Abstract-
“A solar storm is a storm of ions and electrons from the Sun. Large solar storms are usually preceded by solar flares, phenomena that can be characterized quantitatively from Earth. Twenty-five of the thirty-eight largest known solar flares were observed to start when one or more tide-producing planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Jupiter) were either nearly above the event positions (<10° longitude) or at the opposing side of the Sun. The probability for this to happen at random is 0.039 percent. This supports the hypothesis that the force or momentum balance (between the solar atmospheric pressure, the gravity field, and magnetic field) on plasma in the looping magnetic field lines in solar corona could be disturbed by tides, resulting in magnetic field reconnection, solar flares, and solar storms. Separately, from the daily position data of Venus, Earth, and Jupiter, an 11-year planet alignment cycle is observed to approximately match the sunspot cycle. This observation supports the hypothesis that the resonance and beat between the solar tide cycle and nontidal solar activity cycle influences the sunspot cycle and its varying magnitudes. The above relations between the unpredictable solar flares and the predictable solar tidal effects could be used and further developed to forecast the dangerous space weather and therefore reduce its destructive power against the humans in space and satellites controlling mobile phones and global positioning satellite (GPS) systems.”
Whenever I have seen Leif and (mention of) this paper in the same thread it has been studiously, determinedly and pointedly ignored.
Would that we could all claim our findings had the same probability of randomness 😉
Ching-Cheh states tide (and the “known” tidal planets) rather than the total bodies in our system and their magnetic-gravitic-electric-other properties. I presume so as not to garner ridicule from believers in “conventional wisdom” and maybe fears of being labelled an “Astrologist” 😉
The writing is on the wall for convention. Landscheidt was tantalisingly close to the whole but even he missed a vital point in the observation of the solar system from a heliocentric, top-down isometric viewpoint.
I wish the leading proponent was in a position to publish but currently his needs lie elsewhere. Frustrated and constrained, as I am, I rest assured that when this is brought in its entirety to the light the amount of people kicking themselves for not noticing, or not studying celestial mechanics more precisely, will be utterly outnumbered by those who immediately grasp the validity, and implications of this verifiable, repeatable and elegant work and possibly exclaim “I wish I had thought of that”.
The Stevenson’s of Scotland, including RLS’s father and grandfather, were premier lighthouse builders in the 19th c.
What is the “confidence level” for the average global temperature? i.e. today the average temperature was 45.3 +/- .8c. I seem to remember the +/- value being at .8c. If the error margin is greater than the observered warming, how confident are we that we have warmed significantly?
Henry Galt (05:04:48) :
the amount of people kicking themselves for not noticing, or not studying celestial mechanics more precisely, will be utterly outnumbered by those who immediately grasp the validity, and implications of this verifiable, repeatable and elegant work and possibly exclaim “I wish I had thought of that”.
The tide/alignment argument was thought of a long time ago [ca. 1850] and was actually the leading [conventional] theory for at least half a century. The reason is has fallen by the wayside is that as more data and knowledge has accumulated the theory has failed to deliver [the alignments have drifted out of phase because Jupiter’s orbital period is a bit longer than the average solar cycle]. Also, the magnitude of the tides [which is easily calculated using arguments and knowledge three hundred years old] is exceedingly small [one millimeter]. The theory is not studiously ignored [scientists are studiously looking for things that work and are useful for predictions], it simply fails on its merit and has not turned out to be fruitful.
There is no shortage of ‘elegant’ work outside ‘conventional’ science. Here is a work that might appeal to you: http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2008ScienceMeeting/posters/P4_01_Lynch_Poster.pdf
Leif,
You’ll see my data and analysis when I publish.
John S. (09:11:48) :
You’ll see my data and analysis when I publish.
If so, you should have waited with comments. It is usual in such situations to circulate preprints ahead of publication. This serves two purposes:
(1) alerting the community to the work
(2) soliciting comments that might improve the work.
John S. (09:11:48)
I’m fascinated too.
===========
“…no shortage of ‘elegant’ work outside ‘conventional’ science…”
(From the peanut gallery): It sounds like you have in mind an “alternative” definition of the word elegant.
Now, please don’t malign the word “elegant”. ( : – ) )
“elegant science” probaly gets far too many hits on a Google search to please you scientists, but if science does find a solution that sceptics and AGW advocates can agree to, I’ll wager it will carry this adjective in front of it.
Have a nice day. (Back to lurking.)
Leif,
I view blogs as arenas for chewing the fat–outside the customary scientific protocol. No offense to your sensibilties was intended.
BTW, solar physics is not my specialty, nor am I conviced that whatever variations there are in TSI on time-scales longer than you have studied can satisfactorily explain climate variations. One has to look at insolation, nevertheless, quite thoroughly as the source of the energy that drives the entire system. Finding processes/mechanisms that are highly coherent, in the cross-spectral sense, with chaotic climate variables is always a challenge. Non-equilibrium thermodynamics has a habit of confusing people in the soft sciences, inviting speculation without rigorous basis.
Have to return my nose to more serious matters. Cheers!
Getting back to NOAA’s false October temperature report – NOAA GHCN have reported another false stated temperature for October. They have released a report stating that October, 2008, was the second hottest month recorded – NOT SO FAST!
A number of bloggers have found that October, 2008, is actually the tenth warmest October.
It is quite evident that GHCN is adjusting their temperature measurements skewed toward the higher temperature dataset. Could this be deliberate?
John S. (11:46:03) :
I view blogs as arenas for chewing the fat–outside the customary scientific protocol.
In order for us to chew the fat, you have to show the fat.
John S. (11:46:03) :
One has to look at insolation, nevertheless, quite thoroughly as the source of the energy that drives the entire system. Finding processes/mechanisms that are highly coherent, in the cross-spectral sense, with chaotic climate variables is always a challenge. Non-equilibrium thermodynamics has a habit of confusing people in the soft sciences, inviting speculation without rigorous basis.
Have to return my nose to more serious matters. Cheers!
That mouthful turns my BS-filter up several notches…
Well, actually it’s rather untypical having heat pipes uninsulated here in Russia. Even more, it’s against national construction standarts except special construction circumstances. Usually pipes buried inside the ground within so-called heating main (“теплотрасса”).
Look at that image:
http://www.td-msk.ru/images/pushkino.jpg
Uninsulated pipes became more widespread only in recent two decades due to deep economical crysis.
Leif Svalgaard (08:40:10) :
Leif, I expected an answer similar to the one you gave. “The tide/alignment argument” has not been studied in sufficient depth (using recently available software helps) for anyone who has not had demonstrated the distinction between a rough guess and a precise cut in this area.
Allowing the theory to fall “by the wayside” has now been shown to be wrong for a couple of reasons, not least of which is that the belief that “the alignments have drifted out of phase because..(insert reason here) ” is not the study of syzygies and oppositions viewed heliocentrically.
To claim that the Ching-Cheh Hung finding “fails on its merit” and “The probability for this to happen at random is 0.039 percent” has, somehow “not turned out to be fruitful” is, more or less, what I expected you to say but hoped you may have addressed it without pointing to a poor example of something that has failed “on its merit”.
The tide/alignment argument was thought of a long time ago [ca. 1850] and was actually the leading [conventional] theory for at least half a century. The reason is has fallen by the wayside is that as more data and knowledge has accumulated the theory has failed to deliver [the alignments have drifted out of phase because Jupiter’s orbital period is a bit longer than the average solar cycle]. Also, the magnitude of the tides [which is easily calculated using arguments and knowledge three hundred years old] is exceedingly small [one millimeter]. The theory is not studiously ignored [scientists are studiously looking for things that work and are useful for predictions], it simply fails on its merit and has not turned out to be fruitful.
Henry Galt (15:31:06) :
Leif, I expected an answer similar to the one you gave.
And I also expected your response.
To claim that the Ching-Cheh Hung finding “fails on its merit”
The failure [which is obvious] is this: If the alignments are ‘powerful’ enough to influence the [very rare] major flares, they would be even more efficient on the lesser flares [unless precise arguments be given why they would not affect lesser flares], so we would expect the lesser flares to line up as well, even stronger. We have observed thousands of lesser flares and millions of the tiniest flares and no convincing organization of any kind has ever been found. There is some weak evidence for a 154-day period [Riegler flares], but this is marginal and not generally accepted. Do not fall into the trap that scientists only study conventional science. It is every scientists dream to deliver a blow to a piece of ‘conventional’ science. Alas, this is hard to do.
The calculation of the magnitude of the tidal effect is also straightforward [and has been alluded to in this blog already], and as long as arguments are not given that show where the tidal calculations run of the rail, one is faced with the problem of a 1 millimeter bulge, that hardly can have any effect, considering that the solar surface is covered by millions of Texas-sized [that is in excess of 1000,000,000 millimeters] blobs moving randomly at 1000,000 millimeters per second.
I’m right now reviewing a paper that argues that geomagnetic activity [because it is caused by the supposedly planetary driven Sun] should repeat exactly and precisely from now on the values it had in the 1840s and on, so there is the proof that mainstream science even today continues to examine these ideas. And up to now, they have consistently failed. They are not being ‘suppressed’ in any way, they just don’t measure up [and this paper under review doesn’t either, BTW].
I am an engineer involved with the design of steam distribution pipes used in heavy oil recovery fields. I’m not sure what the Russians use for insulation, however, if the amount of of insulation is adequate, the heat loss from the piping should not be significant. On the other hand, an uninsulated pipe will emit significant amounts of heat both from radiant and convective losses.
One of the blogs above mentioned the inability to adjust the heat flow to buildings in base in Barrow. Since steam condenses at a constant temperature (assuming a relatively constant pressure), reducing the steam flow will lead to a greater quantity of condensed steam in the lines relative to the amount of steam vapor since the amount of heat lost from the pipe is unchanged at the lower flow. A buildup of condensate can lead to a phenomenom referred to as water hammer that can result in catastrophic failure of the piping if not kept under control. I have no doubt that this has occurred in just about every Russian town with central steam heating leading to policies of not allowing steam flow regulation.
On another note, having lived in northern Canada, one of the observations I have made is that it is not unusual for it to be relatively windless whenever the temperature drops to low levels (below -25 to -30 C and below). This may help explain the heat island effect in some of these communities under severe cold conditions. I would be interested if anyone else has the same observation.
But I’m sure there are other factors that might keep my conspiricay theory alive. Is Putin in the Carbon trading business?
end quote
Yes. The Russians were given large credits for shutting down lots of inefficient Soviet era factories (that would have died anyway). These they sell to Europe. That is how Europe meets it’s Kyoto goals (to the extent they can) not via actual change. That is also why Russia did a sudden about face and endorsed Kyoto. (Vat? No need to stop fuel burning? Ve get monye from Eurocrazies for noddink? Oky Doky. Ve sign up!)
David L. Hagen (23:53:14) :
Anthony – fascinating prospects.
Check for Date ON/OFF for District Heating
Somewhere I heard or read that in good centralized bureaucratic methodology, some district heating systems were officially turned on at a certain date in the fall and off in the spring
end quote.
Yup… the dorm I lived in at U.C. had ‘central heat’ from a mile or two across campus. Specific on/off days were religiously held without regard to weather. Complaints were met with a reiteration of the specific start /stop day in fall / spring… Isn’t it nice to know that bureaucrats are the same everywhere?
From littleskeptic (16:17:04) :
Well spotted. Time for an Audit of GISS!
end quote
Hmmm…. GAO prides itself on catching all sorts of bogosities and lies in government, and they seem to love roasting sacred cows…
Anyone have a contact in the GAO who needs to make a rep for themselves?
Just a thought 😉
Dell said: This leaves me to basically one of two conclusion
end quote
Or three: It’s much more pleasant to do a global warming story about tropical islands sinking (think beach scene) than a story about Siberia being 2 degrees hotter at -78 instead of -80 😉
Not that I would EVER accuse the MSM of location bias 😎
E.M.Smith (00:17:36) :
>The Russians were given large credits for shutting down lots of inefficient Soviet era factories
.
BTW, those factories wasn’t been inefficient. While having much less labour force (and hence lower benefits from division of labour), capital, colonial puppet regimes and much more harsh environmental conditions than it’s western rivals USSR still maintained second most advanced economy in the world. “Inefficiency” of soviet industry has nothing to do with its bankruptcy just like in case of Ford, GM and other US industrial giants.
Temperature anomaly (dimension degree Celcius) is clearly NOT a non-dimensional quantity.
Why does climate science insist on using dimensional quantities to describe important phenomena?
All kinds of mathematical sins, errors and misunderstandings can be hidden inside dimensional quantities. is not this just another example of this?
icarus (19:46:05) :
Temperature anomaly (dimension degree Celcius) is clearly NOT a non-dimensional quantity.
Why does climate science insist on using dimensional quantities to describe important phenomena?
Divide by the mean temperature in Kelvin [290K] and you get a non-dimensional quantity. The graph of that quantity doesn’t change, only the scale, no there is really nothing wrong with the standard practice.
Thanks Leif for the links, which I will explore. And also thanks Henry for the Hung paper – which I will also look at. Intuitively speaking, I doubt it is a tidal thing. What else is there? Well – there are magnetic tunnels here and there, and these accelerate electrons from there to here, so what happens to the rest of the circuit? Voltage changes can shock systems.
Landscheidt talked of the transfer of angular momentum and torque rather than small rises on the surface. His graphs of this changing over time look remarkably like the sunspot cycle.
One question to Leif: if TSI has not changed much since Maunder Minimum AND the magnetic field has also not changed much – then that only leaves the Interplanetary flux – as measured by Lockwood and Stamper and modelled by Solank – and assumed that the geomagnetic field captured some of that energy and the aa index thus followed the IP flux. If the aa has not changed, why do we get a variation in beryllium-10 and carbon-14 at the same time as the MM? Why do radiogenic isotope variations track the palaeo-ecological data on temperature and precipitation patterns?
Peter Taylor (04:06:00) :
there are magnetic tunnels here and there, and these accelerate electrons from there to here, so what happens to the rest of the circuit? Voltage changes can shock systems.
There are no ‘magnetic tunnels’. This is a very misleading term. What happens is that the interplanetary magnetic field and the Earth’s field can connect [if they are in opposite directions]. Because the IMF varies a lot, this reconnection takes place in thousands of small patches all over the front of the Earth’s magnetosphere. This allows the Earth’s magnetic field to be dragged out behind the Earth [as seen from the Sun]. The pile-up of this magnetic field is unstable and blows up every few hours where the field ‘snaps’ back and thereby accelerating particles than cause aurorae and geomagnetic activity.
Landscheidt talked of the transfer of angular momentum and torque rather than small rises on the surface. His graphs of this changing over time look remarkably like the sunspot cycle.
Angular momentum is measured with respect to an axis of rotation. L takes that to be the barycenter. Because the barycenter moves around [follows Jupiter] the axis moves too, so you get a ‘change’ of angular momentum simply because the axis moved. The Sun doesn’t feel a thing from this and there are no ‘effects’. The these movements look like the solar cycle is because Jupiter’s orbital period is close to the solar cycle period.
if TSI has not changed much since Maunder Minimum AND the magnetic field has also not changed much – then that only leaves the Interplanetary flux
The flux is just the total field through a sphere around the Sun. Double the field, double the flux. No change in field, no change in flux.
as measured by Lockwood and Stamper and modelled by Solanki
The ‘doubling’ inferred by Lockwood et al. didn’t happen and Solanki’s model was adjusted to fit the ‘doubling’. See: http://www.leif.org/research/Comment%20on%20McCracken.pdf
and assumed that the geomagnetic field captured some of that energy and the aa index thus followed the IP flux.
aa is wrong [too low] before 1957, see: http://www.leif.org/research/Reply%20to%20Lockwood%20IDV%20Comment.pdf
If the aa has not changed, why do we get a variation in beryllium-10 and carbon-14 at the same time as the MM?
Because the cosmic ray flux does not depend on aa, but on the sunspot number, which was smaller during the MM
Why do radiogenic isotope variations track the palaeo-ecological data on temperature and precipitation patterns?
Because these patterns in turn influence the deposition of the isotopes. See: http://www.leif.org/research/Aldahan%20GRL.pdf