An interesting tidbit from the Australian Antarctic Division (h/t to Trevor Gunter)
Scientists have long searched for linkages between solar variability and weather. The sun varies on a wide-range of time scales, most dramatically on an ~11 year cycle which is strongly associated with the number and extent of sunspots on the sun and the occurrence of aurora at high latitudes. While correlations of weather and solar variability have been reported, often-times to disappear when further measurements become available, no viable mechanism for the strongest associations has been confirmed. One difficulty is that the variable solar energy, despite sunspots and aurora being spectacular, is but a small fraction of 1% of the total solar energy. Any mechanism for changing weather and climate by solar variability must involve influencing the distribution of the energy within the weather system. One possible mechanism is via the Earth’s geoelectric field.
Thunderclouds separate electric charge with positive charges accumulating in the upper reaches of the cloud and negative charges near its base. The lightning generated drags current from the Earth and, perhaps counter-intuitively, it is easier for this current to return to the Earth in a less dramatic fashion via the 99% of the Earth not covered by thunderstorms at any particular time. Currents preferentially travel along lines of least resistance. At altitudes above ~90 km, the Earth’s atmosphere contains a sufficient density of free electrons for a global equipotential to be largely maintained. The Earth’s surface is another global equipotential. Conductivity in the region of the atmosphere between these boundaries generally increases with altitude, and is dominantly maintained by ionising radiation from cosmic rays. The variation in conductivity in the atmosphere is such that the path of least resistance at an altitude greater than ~5 km is via the ionosphere, where it may spread globally and return to ground via the global ‘fair-weather’ field.
Global thunderstorms maintain the lowest reaches of the ionosphere at a potential of ~250 kV with respect to the ground. This results in a very weak atmospheric current (3 pico-amps per meter squared) toward the Earth in the fair-weather regions of the globe, and near the ground maintains a substantive vertical electric field of some 100 volts per meter. Cosmic ray ionisation, the magnitude of which can be controlled by solar activity via the solar wind, modulates the resistance of this global electric circuit in which thunderstorms are the generators. By controlling the ease with thunderstorms can dissipate current it is feasible that solar activity may modulate the intensity of thunderstorm development, thus modulating the distribution of energy within the meteorological system.
High, dry regions with no thunderstorms, such as the Antarctic plateau, are ideal for monitoring the global geoelectric circuit. Additional solar influences on the geoelectric field occur at high latitudes, via the same processes that generate the aurora. In conjunction with Russian and American colleagues, we presently measure the geoelectric field at the Russian station, Vostok, on the Antarctic plateau. We have shown that solar variability can influence the geoelectric field measured at ground level in polar regions, and are continuing to develop research instrumentation and methods of testing the viability of a solar variability influence on weather and climate through modulation of the geoelectric circuit.
For more information, email: sas@aad.gov.au
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“By controlling the ease with [which] thunderstorms can dissipate current, it is feasible that solar activity may modulate the intensity of thunderstorm development, thus modulating the distribution of energy within the meteorological system.”
But, but, but…..the science is settled. It’s all CO2 dontcha know.
I have come to believe that the sun impacts the energy on earth via electromagnetic effects and suspect it will explain the abnormal warming of the Antarctic peninsula.
Thinking of the earth as a simple generator, solar-geo magnetic field is coupled to the earth’s rotation generating electric currents. Increase the field and increase the currents increase the Watts in the environment.
The Antarctic peninusla continued to warm even during and despite the cooling period of the 60’s and 70’s, suggesting that it is not atmospheric warming that is responsible. However the magnetic field was continuing to grow throughout the 1900’s. The magnetic field is unusually intense in the south Atlantic and planes avoid flying over that area for fear of damage to their electronics. Pipeline engineers recognize a coastal effect where electric currents intensify in pipelines on the coast causing increased corrosion.
I think I understand most of this, except for the effects of changes in resistance in the upper atmosphere.
So the idea is that less solar wind -> more cosmic rays -> more upper atmosphere ionization -> less resistance to dissipate electrical charge in upper atmosphere -> ?fewer/less severe thunderstorms?
Very interesting Anthony. Further indication that what we don’t know is enormous. Coupled with questionable data, it’s hard to draw any meaningful conclusions on what the future holds. But, IMHO, it seems obvious that co2 has a very small part in the very complex machinations of the climate. fm
A hundred years from now, people will marvel at how little we knew about climate and weather in 2009.
The fact that we would seriously consider imploding our economy over how much plant food is in the atmosphere when there are hundreds of Super Fund toxic dumps in the United States alone, slowly but steadily leaching toxic chemicals into the food chain and our bodies, is astonishing.
What is 1% variability in solar output worth?
Earth temp without sun: -273 deg C.
Earth with normal sun: +12 deg C.
Total sun normal sun output: +285 deg C.
1% of total output = cc. 3 deg C.
But maybe that’s way too simplistic.
Didn’t John Galt invent a motor that ran off of atmospheric electricity?
A bit off topic, but here’s a recent study that shows:
“They found that the glaciers around Mount Cook, New Zealand’s highest peak, reached their largest extent in the past 7,000 years about 6,500 years ago, when the Swiss Alps and Scandinavia were relatively warm. That’s about 6,000 years before northern glaciers hit their Holocene peak during the Little Ice Age, between 1300 and 1860 AD.
That finding was a surprise to some scientists who assumed that the northern cold phase happened globally. The record in New Zealand shows other disparities that point to regional climate variations in both hemispheres, including glacial peaks during classic northern warm intervals such as the Medieval Warm Period and the Roman Age Optimum.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090430144535.htm
Glaciers advanced for the 500 years during the Little Ice age and now that they have been retreating the last 150 years it’s because of CO2 and not some natural cycle.
Thanks
Edward
Well, according to Mann “In regard to the science of climate change, as Clive Hamilton has put it, the only decision citizens have to make is not what to believe but who. ”
So it really is more about personalities than facts, I suppose.
Good stuff, got the same feel as Clark.
As for upper atmosphere electrical dynamics controlling thunderstorms…eh…maaaaaaby. Remember, lightning and the static electrical build-up in the storms is mainly driven by the turbulent mixing of the ice particles in the storm which is a result of the windflow within the storm. I would think that would have such an over-powering effect on the lighting dynamics as opposed to the electrical characteristics of the area ‘above’ the storm. However – the upper atmosphere *may* have a bigger effect on the types of lightning which go up out of the storms (red sprites, blue jets, etc. – google it) as opposed to the *normal* lighting which is focused down toward the ground.
Just my $ .02
Jeff
I understand the whole geo-electric field….but how in the world does that silver ball work??
Jim Steele (07:40:24)
Interesting, what you described is exactly the conclusion that I had reached a few weeks ago. I’m in the process of doing some research to see if what you describe is true, but it seems sensible to me
Very sneaky!
You’re trying to confuse us with science.
This variance and its affects may be true, but it is probably buried in the MUCH stronger oceanic affects on land temperatures. I am convinced that people have old, buried, instinctive notions about the Sun. Yes, it heats the planet everywhere it shines. But the planet cools itself everywhere the Sun doesn’t shine. That explains daytime and nighttime temps. The Sun is the constant. The Earth’s natural processes (those in the water, in the air, in and on the land, and in the upper atmosphere) are the sources of variation. Daily, monthly, seasonally, decadally, and beyond. Yes, there are solar affects but these don’t tell us whether or not to start storing food, or the reverse, to plant long season, Sun-loving crops.
This same “Earth is the variance, Sun is the constant”, relationship can be found in all instances of talk that it is the Sun that causes the variation that we see, feel, and can measure in trends. The mechanisms are there and easily understood as well as modeled regarding the natural processes of the Earth. The Sun, not so much. The notion is there, the mechanism is not. The far less romantic notion of the Earth being the source of temperature variations just doesn’t tickle us and our deeply held instincts about the Sun. In a way, our notions about the Sun are still tied to Stonehenge.
Interesting – but wouldn’t Faraday’s law dictate that a varying geoelectric current (driven in this case by Solar Variability) within a ~constant magnetic field (the Earth’s) suggest that motion should be induced? Its analogous to an electric motor.
For example, do you see changes in the Earth’s angular momentum as a function of changes in the geoelectric field? Changes in angular momentum (and associated changes in mountain torque) would be a good mechanism for perturbing the Rossby wave train and causing changes in climate?
Perhaps my thinking is naive here, but I could believe a mechanism like this over more direct changes in electric discharge etc.
Anyone have thoughts?
To my previous point. If you plot Global Angular Momentum data ( found here http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/data/climateindices/ ) since late 1950’s there is a slight increasing trend up until the timing of the strong El Nino (and solar max) around 1998.
Like global temperature (and solar activity), the Global Angular Momentum has then shown a flattening or decreasing trend since 1998. Global Angular Momentum is correlated with Global Temperature (and solar) – why?
Steven Kopits (08:09:54) :
What is 1% variability in solar output worth?
It is worth 1/4% in temperature, or 1/4% of 288K = 0.72K, but solar variability is observed to be ten times smaller, i.e. 0.1% corresponding to 0.07K.
I suppose if this is true we should see a correlation in thunderstorm total electrical energy vs solar activity (or vs the current measured by this device… I wonder how much history there is.
I don’t see how changing electrical conductivity in the atmosphere would regulate thunderstorm intensity, the intensity intuitively should be a result of temperature differential / moisture, convection, etc. Whether more lightning is developed or not would seem to be unrelated to the convective inputs, though could be related to ionization levels. We have super low conductivity spread over a vast volume… I would think it’s pretty easy to strike a balance there given the sheer volume of the medium.
“…One difficulty is that the variable solar energy, despite sunspots and aurora being spectacular, is but a small fraction of 1% of the total solar energy…”
Since when has that been a problem, C02 represents a small fraction of 1% of the atmosphere. So whose “small fraction” is baddest? We’ll soon find out.
Michael D Smith (09:25:14) :
I suppose if this is true we should see a correlation in thunderstorm total electrical energy vs solar activity (or vs …
There is indeed an electric field in the lower atmosphere. Rather large, in fact, 100 Volts per meter. This electric field is due to a voltage difference between the ionosphere and the surface. This difference is created by and maintained by thunderstorms. I have not seen convincing evidence that causation goes the other way [lots of claims, of course, but there are lots of claims of everything].
Some of you may have read in the Wikipedia that Henrik Svensmark’s finding of an inverse correlation between solar activity, global temperature, and galactic cosmic radiation has been “discredited.” You need to also read this:
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/Svensmark_FriisChtr-Reply%20to%20Lockwood.pdf
Jim Steele (07:40:24) :
“However the magnetic field was continuing to grow throughout the 1900’s. ”
To the best of my knowledge, the Earth’s magnetic field is weakening, and rapidly so.
“The magnetic field is unusually intense in the south Atlantic and planes avoid flying over that area for fear of damage to their electronics.”
Again, untrue. The field is unusually WEAK there, allowing Van Allen radiation to be much stronger. Planes avoid the area to avoid exposing passengers, crew and electronics to radiation. Attempts are made for satellites in orbit to avoid this region as well.
The combination of the South Atlantic Anomaly combined with the rapid weakening of Earth’s magnetic field has led many to speculate that a pole reversal is underway.
Yes, although no mechanism is known. (Correction in above: “charge in upper” should be “charge from upper” as they suggest there may be less resistance below the upper atmosphere.) We can speculate that a greater high-altitude charge may encourage thunderstorm height, lightning may carry more power, or micro-droplets of condensed water may have a greater electrical attraction to form larger droplets before they can again evaporate. For that matter, if a stronger electrical field encourages water droplet formation then global cloud formation might be affected (would a stronger field encourage lower or higher clouds?).
cross-patch,
My reference to the increasing solar magnetic field was during most of the 1900’s. Yes it is rapidly decreasing and thus I would predict we will witness a similar decrease in temperatures.
I stand corrected on the South Atlantic anomaly. I carelessly rushed the post so I could go to work. I was trying to state that affects of geo-electric currents, and the anomaly allows a greater flow of current into that region with resulting increased telluric currents similar to what polar regions experience during auroras. With the decreasing solar output, I also suspect that the warming of the peninsula has plateaued.