Spotting the Solar Regime Shifts Driving Earth's Climate

Some people cite scientists saying there is a “CO2 control knob” for Earth. No doubt there is, but due to the logarithmic effect of CO2, I think of it like a fine tuning knob, not the main station tuner. That said, a new data picture is emerging of an even bigger knob and lever; a nice bright yellow one.

The ultimate power shifter - artwork by Anthony - click to enlarge

A few months back, I found a website from NOAA that provides an algorithm and downloadable program for spotting regime shifts in time series data. It was designed by Sergei Rodionov of the NOAA Bering Climate and Ecosystem Center for the purpose of detecting shifts in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

Regime shifts are defined as rapid reorganizations of ecosystems from one relatively stable state to another. In the marine environment, regimes may last for several decades and shifts often appear to be associated with changes in the climate system. In the North Pacific, climate regimes are typically described using the concept of Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Regime shifts were also found in many other variables as demonstrated in the Data section of this website (select a variable and then click “Recent trends”).

But data is data, and the program doesn’t care if it is ecosystem data, temperature data, population data, or solar data. It just looks for and identifies abrupt changes that stabilize at a new level. For example, a useful application of the program is to look for shifts in weather data, such as that caused by the PDO. Here we can clearly see the great Pacific Climate Shift of 1976/77:

Another useful application is to use it to identify station moves that result in a temperature shift. It might also be applied to proxy data, such as ice core Oxygen 18 isotope data.

But the program was developed around the PDO. What drives the PDO? Many say the sun, though there are other factors too. It follows to reason then the we might be able to look for solar regime shifts in PDO driven temperature data.

Alan of AppInSys found the same application and has done just that, and the results are quite interesting. The correlation is well aligned, and it demonstrates the solar to PDO connection quite well. I’ll let him tell his story of discovery below. – Anthony

=================================

Climate Regime Shifts

The notion that climate variations often occur in the form of ‘‘regimes’’ began to become appreciated in the 1990s. This paradigm was inspired in large part by the rapid change of the North Pacific climate around 1977 [e.g., Kerr, 1992] and the identification of other abrupt shifts in association with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) [Mantua et al., 1997].” [http://www.beringclimate.noaa.gov/regimes/Regime_shift_algorithm.pdf]

Pacific Regime Shifts

Hare and Mantua, 2000 (“Empirical evidence for North Pacific regime shifts in 1977 and 1989”): “It is now widely accepted that a climatic regime shift transpired in the North Pacific Ocean in the winter of 1976–77. This regime shift has had far reaching consequences for the large marine ecosystems of the North Pacific. Despite the strength and scope of the changes initiated by the shift, it was 10–15 years before it was fully recognized. Subsequent research has suggested that this event was not unique in the historical record but merely the latest in a succession of climatic regime shifts. In this study, we assembled 100 environmental time series, 31 climatic and 69 biological, to determine if there is evidence for common regime signals in the 1965–1997 period of record. Our analysis reproduces previously documented features of the 1977 regime shift, and identifies a further shift in 1989 in some components of the North Pacific ecosystem. The 1989 changes were neither as pervasive as the 1977 changes nor did they signal a simple return to pre-1977 conditions.”

[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V7B-41FTS3S-2…]

Overland et al “North Pacific regime shifts: Definitions, issues and recent transitions”

[http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/foci/publications/2008/overN667.pdf]: “climate variables for the North Pacific display shifts near 1977, 1989 and 1998.”

The following figure from the above paper show analysis of PDO and Victoria Index using the Rodionov regime detection algorithm. A regime shift is also detected around 1947-48.

The following figure shows regime shift detection for the summer PDO, showing shifts at 1948, 1976 and 1998.

[http://www.beringclimate.noaa.gov/data/Images/PDOs_FigRegime.html]

(For detailed information on the 1976/77 climate shift,

see: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/The1976-78ClimateShift.htm)

Regime Shift Detection in Annual Temperature Anomaly Data

The NOAA Bering Climate web site provides the algorithm for regime shift detection developed by Sergei Rodionov [http://www.beringclimate.noaa.gov/regimes/index.html]. The following analyses use the Excel VBA regime change algorithm version 3.2 from this web site.

The following figure shows the regime analysis of the HadCRUT3 annual global annual average temperature anomaly data from the Met Office Hadley Centre for 1895 to 2009 [http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual].

The analysis was run based on the mean using a significance level of 0.1, cut-off length of 10 and Huber weight parameter of 2 using red noise IP4 subsample size 6. Regime changes are identified in 1902, 1914, 1926, 1937, 1946, 1957, 1977, 1987, and 1997. Running the analysis based on the variance rather than the mean results in regime changes in the bold years listed above.

Regime Shift Relationship to Solar Cycle

The NASA Solar Physics web site provides the following figure showing sunspot area.

[http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml]

The following figure compares the Hadley (HadCrut3) monthly global average temperature (from [http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/]) overlaid with the regime change line (red line) shown previously, along with the sunspot area since 1900. The sunspot cycle is approximately 11 years. The sun’s magnetic field reverses with each sunspot cycle and thus after two sunspot cycles the magnetic field has completed a cycle – a Hale Cycle – and is back to where it started. Thus a complete magnetic sunspot cycle is approximately 22 years. The figure marks the onset of odd-numbered cycles with a vertical red line, even-numbered cycles with a green line.

From the figure above it can be seen that the regime changes correspond to the onset of solar cycles and occur when the “butterfly” is at its widest. The most significant warming regime shifts occur at the start of odd-numbered cycles (1937, 1957, 1977, 1997). Each odd-numbered cycle (red lines above) has resulted in a temperature-increase regime shift. Even-numbered cycles (green lines above) have been inconsistent, with some resulting in temperature-decrease regime shifts (1902, 1946) or minor temperature-increase shifts (1926, 1987).

An unusual one is the 1957 – 1966 cycle, which in the monthly data shown above visually looks like a temperature-increase shift in 1957 followed by a temperature-decrease shift in 1964 but the regime detection algorithm did not identify it. This is likely due to the use of annually averaged data in the regime detection algorithm.

The following figure shows the relative polarity of the Sun’s magnetic poles for recent sunspot cycles along with the solar magnetic flux [www.bu.edu/csp/nas/IHY_MagField.ppt]. The regime change periods are highlighted by the red and green boxes. Each one occurs on as the solar cycle is accelerating. The onset of an odd-numbered sunspot cycle (1977-78, 1997-98) results in the relative alignment of the Earth’s and the Sun’s magnetic fields (positive North pole on the Sun) allowing greater penetration of the geomagnetic storms into the Earth’s atmosphere. “Twenty times more solar particles cross the Earth’s leaky magnetic shield when the sun’s magnetic field is aligned with that of the Earth compared to when the two magnetic fields are oppositely directed” [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/news/themis_leaky_shield.html]

The following figure shows the longitudinally averaged solar magnetic field. This “magnetic butterfly diagram” shows that the sunspots are involved with transporting the field in its reversal. The Earth’s temperature regime shifts are indicated with the superimposed boxes – red on odd numbered solar cycles, green on even.

[http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrsp-2010-1&page=articlesu8.html]

The Earth’s temperature regime shift occurs as the solar magnetic field begins its reversal.

Solar Cycle 24

Solar cycle 24 is in its initial stage after getting off to a late start. An El Nino occurred in the first part of 2010. This may be the start of the next regime shift.

Climate Regime Shifts

[last update: 2010/07/04]

The notion that climate variations often occur in the form of ‘‘regimes’’ began to become appreciated in the 1990s. This paradigm was inspired in large part by the rapid change of the North Pacific climate around 1977 [e.g., Kerr, 1992] and the identification of other abrupt shifts in association with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) [Mantua et al., 1997].” [http://www.beringclimate.noaa.gov/regimes/Regime_shift_algorithm.pdf]

Pacific Regime Shifts

Hare and Mantua, 2000 (“Empirical evidence for North Pacific regime shifts in 1977 and 1989”): “It is now widely accepted that a climatic regime shift transpired in the North Pacific Ocean in the winter of 1976–77. This regime shift has had far reaching consequences for the large marine ecosystems of the North Pacific. Despite the strength and scope of the changes initiated by the shift, it was 10–15 years before it was fully recognized. Subsequent research has suggested that this event was not unique in the historical record but merely the latest in a succession of climatic regime shifts. In this study, we assembled 100 environmental time series, 31 climatic and 69 biological, to determine if there is evidence for common regime signals in the 1965–1997 period of record. Our analysis reproduces previously documented features of the 1977 regime shift, and identifies a further shift in 1989 in some components of the North Pacific ecosystem. The 1989 changes were neither as pervasive as the 1977 changes nor did they signal a simple return to pre-1977 conditions.”

[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V7B-41FTS3S-2…]

Overland et al “North Pacific regime shifts: Definitions, issues and recent transitions”

[http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/foci/publications/2008/overN667.pdf]: “climate variables for the North Pacific display shifts near 1977, 1989 and 1998.”

The following figure from the above paper show analysis of PDO and Victoria Index using the Rodionov regime detection algorithm. A regime shift is also detected around 1947-48.

The following figure shows regime shift detection for the summer PDO, showing shifts at 1948, 1976 and 1998.

[http://www.beringclimate.noaa.gov/data/Images/PDOs_FigRegime.html]

(For detailed information on the 1976/77 climate shift,

see: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/The1976-78ClimateShift.htm)

Regime Shift Detection in Annual Temperature Anomaly Data

The NOAA Bering Climate web site provides the algorithm for regime shift detection developed by Sergei Rodionov [http://www.beringclimate.noaa.gov/regimes/index.html]. The following analyses use the Excel VBA regime change algorithm version 3.2 from this web site.

The following figure shows the regime analysis of the HadCRUT3 annual global annual average temperature anomaly data from the Met Office Hadley Centre for 1895 to 2009 [http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual].

The analysis was run based on the mean using a significance level of 0.1, cut-off length of 10 and Huber weight parameter of 2 using red noise IP4 subsample size 6. Regime changes are identified in 1902, 1914, 1926, 1937, 1946, 1957, 1977, 1987, and 1997. Running the analysis based on the variance rather than the mean results in regime changes in the bold years listed above.

Regime Shift Relationship to Solar Cycle

The NASA Solar Physics web site provides the following figure showing sunspot area.

[http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml]

The following figure compares the Hadley (HadCrut3) monthly global average temperature (from [http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/]) overlaid with the regime change line (red line) shown previously, along with the sunspot area since 1900. The sunspot cycle is approximately 11 years. The sun’s magnetic field reverses with each sunspot cycle and thus after two sunspot cycles the magnetic field has completed a cycle – a Hale Cycle – and is back to where it started. Thus a complete magnetic sunspot cycle is approximately 22 years. The figure marks the onset of odd-numbered cycles with a vertical red line, even-numbered cycles with a green line.

From the figure above it can be seen that the regime changes correspond to the onset of solar cycles and occur when the “butterfly” is at its widest. The most significant warming regime shifts occur at the start of odd-numbered cycles (1937, 1957, 1977, 1997). Each odd-numbered cycle (red lines above) has resulted in a temperature-increase regime shift. Even-numbered cycles (green lines above) have been inconsistent, with some resulting in temperature-decrease regime shifts (1902, 1946) or minor temperature-increase shifts (1926, 1987).

An unusual one is the 1957 – 1966 cycle, which in the monthly data shown above visually looks like a temperature-increase shift in 1957 followed by a temperature-decrease shift in 1964 but the regime detection algorithm did not identify it. This is likely due to the use of annually averaged data in the regime detection algorithm.

The following figure shows the relative polarity of the Sun’s magnetic poles for recent sunspot cycles along with the solar magnetic flux [www.bu.edu/csp/nas/IHY_MagField.ppt]. The regime change periods are highlighted by the red and green boxes. Each one occurs on as the solar cycle is accelerating. The onset of an odd-numbered sunspot cycle (1977-78, 1997-98) results in the relative alignment of the Earth’s and the Sun’s magnetic fields (positive North pole on the Sun) allowing greater penetration of the geomagnetic storms into the Earth’s atmosphere. “Twenty times more solar particles cross the Earth’s leaky magnetic shield when the sun’s magnetic field is aligned with that of the Earth compared to when the two magnetic fields are oppositely directed” [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/news/themis_leaky_shield.html]

The following figure shows the longitudinally averaged solar magnetic field. This “magnetic butterfly diagram” shows that the sunspots are involved with transporting the field in its reversal. The Earth’s temperature regime shifts are indicated with the superimposed boxes – red on odd numbered solar cycles, green on even.

[http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrsp-2010-1&page=articlesu8.html]

The Earth’s temperature regime shift occurs as the solar magnetic field begins its reversal.

Solar Cycle 24

Solar cycle 24 is in its initial stage after getting off to a late start. An El Nino occurred in the first part of 2010. This may be the start of the next regime shift.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
660 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
July 15, 2010 9:27 am

Vuk etc. says:
July 15, 2010 at 9:22 am
and here is what US navy teaches their scientists:
The helical curve illustrates a characteristic magnetic field line. Magnetic clouds may indeed be structurally simple as depicted here. Recent observations indicate that magnetic field lines of magnetic clouds do remain connected to the Sun and that the field lines toward the outer edge of a flux rope are more twisted [Larson et al., 1997]. This property is implied by the model structure and the magnetic field described below.

And here is what you say:
Clearly electric current and magnetic field form a close circuit solar surface – magnetosphere – solar surface.
I don’t see any similarity between these two statements.

July 15, 2010 9:33 am

Leif Svalgaard said :
“the solar wind transfers angular momentum from the Sun to the planets via the magnetic field, thus causing the planets to recede from the Sun. This effect is at present negligible [but was not in the distant past].”
It might well be negligible in terms of moving planets outward but is it negligible in terms of interfering with the pressure distribution in the thin atmospheres around planets ?

July 15, 2010 9:45 am

Richard Holle said:
“To see the solar cycle as anything other than the turbulence felt by the solar internal fields to these flexes in the external fields, is not going to very productive. To see the driving effects on the earth’s climate as anything less than the sum of these influences on the energy budget, and ion flux in the atmosphere, transferred through the lunar declinational tidal effects, to the global circulation patterns that result, as a compounding of these cyclic forces, is the way out of the current lack of understanding on how the weather works and turns into climate with time.”
That sounds reasonable to me save that I’m not convinced of any lunar effect on 500 / 1000 year timescales which is what we need to account for the MWP, the LIA and the current warming.
Bear in mind that the only effect required from any external influence is to cause the pressure distributions in the atmosphere below the tropopause to vary a little. It wouldn’t take a lot to do that.

July 15, 2010 9:51 am

Stephen Wilde says:
July 15, 2010 at 9:33 am
It might well be negligible in terms of moving planets outward but is it negligible in terms of interfering with the pressure distribution in the thin atmospheres around planets ?
Absolutely. And even it were not, changing the thin upper atmosphere that contributes less than a billionth of the total pressure, would not have any noticeable effect.

July 15, 2010 10:09 am

Geoff Sharp says:
July 15, 2010 at 9:04 am
Anyone can see the flows do not last 22 years as Rachel says….
Here is Rachel’s data. From past data we see that the next cycle smoothly attaches to the current one, so let’s attach the graph of cycle 24 from 1998 onwards to the end of 2008 to give us a full cycle. the slanting cyan arrow highlights the TO. Tell us when that line begins and ends. To make it easy I have put a matching but horizontal line along the time axis.

July 15, 2010 10:12 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
July 15, 2010 at 10:09 am
Here is Rachel’s data.
http://www.leif.org/research/Torsional-Oscillation.png

Pamela Gray
July 15, 2010 10:21 am

Interesting question Stephen. Are you asking in relation to tradewind/pressure changes connected to the equatorial/polar system? And then does the solar wind have anything to do with this fluctuating system?

Pamela Gray
July 15, 2010 10:27 am

Thanks Leif. You beat me to it. I was hoping to allow Stephen to discover this for himself, but as always, you never beat around the bush. In terms of a dear teacher of mine (who was an Army sergeant before becoming a teacher), she always got down to the “brass tacks” and “where the rubber meets the road”, and encouraged her pupils to “get on the stick”.

July 15, 2010 10:42 am

A 2 L.S.
Because you ‘conveniently’ sidestepped first bit :
Ilustration http://wwwppd.nrl.navy.mil/prediction/cloud.gif
from Navy’s article
http://wwwppd.nrl.navy.mil/prediction/storms.html
more details on the structure here:
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-345/ch15.htm#250
but I asumed you knew that electric current can flow only in a close circuit.
Lets try again:
A magnetic cloud event observed August 12, 2000 the total axial magnetic flux and the total axial current bounded by the highlighted white contour line are 7.6 × 10to power 12 T-m2, and 1.1 × 10 to power 9 A, respectively (1,100,000,000 Amps or 1.1 billion Amps), and that is some current!
http://www.srl.caltech.edu/ACE/ACENews/ACENews66.html
lets make it clear, they are talking about A Double Flux-Rope Magnetic Cloud and axial (along the axis) electric current !
Eelectric current can flow only in a close circuit!

July 15, 2010 11:03 am

Vuk etc. says:
July 15, 2010 at 10:42 am
electric current can flow only in a close circuit!
If you have a clump of charges at point A and another clump, but with opposite charge] at point B, a one-way current would flow from A to B. No closed circuit here.
Magnetic field structure create electric currents where they change direction, e.g. the Heliospheric Current sheet. A billion amps is not ‘some current’ as the current density is extremely low. Only by integrating over a huge volume do you get the large number.

tonyb
Editor
July 15, 2010 11:22 am

Stephen Wilde said;
“That sounds reasonable to me save that I’m not convinced of any lunar effect on 500 / 1000 year timescales which is what we need to account for the MWP, the LIA and the current warming.”
Can you contact me by clicking on my name as I would like to send you something for your comment.
tonyb

July 15, 2010 11:33 am

Pamela Gray asked:
“Are you asking in relation to tradewind/pressure changes connected to the equatorial/polar system? And then does the solar wind have anything to do with this fluctuating system?”
Not quite. The bit that needs to fluctuate is from tropopause upwards. The effect would be to alter the temperature of the stratosphere and thereby alter the strength of the temperature inversion at the tropopause which would then affect the pressure distribution below and especially at the poles.
All that is needed is to slightly alter the upward energy flux from the stratopause to space so as to affect the energy budget of the stratosphere from above.
Although Leif’s input is always helpful I have found him a little frustrating on this issue because he seems to me to keep missing the point.
He concedes that the solar wind can move planets and has done so in the distant past but then jumps to an assertion that it is impossible for it to affect the upward energy flux at all. I find such a jump from a planet moving force to a zero effect on anything somewhat hard to accept.
He correctly points out that the thermosphere is too thin to have any effect below but that begs the question as to whether solar variability can affect the upward energy flux from the stratopause upward. He has previously provided me with a link that indicates that solar effects can produce a radiative response extending from troposphere to exosphere. Admittedly that was a diurnal response to the night and day cycle but nonetheless it is a radiative response to a solar forcing and therefore logically should apply to all levels of solar variability on all timescales.
The thing is I need only a very tiny variability in the energy flux from stratopause upward to drive small slow changes in stratospheric temperatures. I have difficulty accepting that there is an absolutely zero effect from solar variability which appears to be Leif’s basic position.
Oftentimes in the past tiny phenomena considered to be of little import have been found to have disproportionate consequences. Thus I take what Leif says on board but because of what I see the climate system actually doing I cannot quite take his viewpoint as definitive.
There is a flaw in someone’s theories somewhere or we would have the climate system properly figured out. That flaw is as likely to be in Leif’s understanding as in the understanding of anyone else.

July 15, 2010 11:43 am

Stephen Wilde says:
July 15, 2010 at 11:33 am
He concedes
What nonsense is that? I ‘state’ that the solar wind can move planets and has done so in the distant past but then jumps to an assertion that it is impossible for it to affect the upward energy flux at all. I find such a jump from a planet moving force to a zero effect on anything somewhat hard to accept.
This is a question of scale. The planet moving force does not operate any longer [too small].
Admittedly that was a diurnal response to the night and day cycle but nonetheless it is a radiative response to a solar forcing and therefore logically should apply to all levels of solar variability on all timescales.
A response to something from below. And you are confusing scales again. There is a difference between an effect at a given level and the same effect but at a level a trillionth o the former. The latter can be ignored.
I have difficulty accepting that there is an absolutely zero effect from solar variability which appears to be Leif’s basic position.
My basic position is that, of course, solar variability has effects, they are just so tiny not to be of any significance in the climate debate.
Oftentimes in the past tiny phenomena considered to be of little import have been found to have disproportionate consequences.
Is an invalid argument for particular cases.
There is a flaw in someone’s theories somewhere or we would have the climate system properly figured out.
There are flaws on either side. Desperately invoking the Sun, or desperately invoking AGW.

July 15, 2010 11:45 am

Stephen Wilde says:
July 15, 2010 at 11:33 am
He concedes …
What nonsense is that, concedes? I ‘state’ that the solar wind can move planets and has done so in the distant past. This is a question of scale. The planet moving force does not operate any longer [too small].

July 15, 2010 11:51 am

Nonsense again:
1. Illustration
http://wwwppd.nrl.navy.mil/prediction/cloud.gif
from Navy’s article
http://wwwppd.nrl.navy.mil/prediction/storms.html
Recent observations indicate that magnetic field lines of magnetic clouds do remain connected to the Sun and that the field lines toward the outer edge of a flux rope are more twisted [Larson et al., 1997]. This property is implied by the model structure and the magnetic field described below.
http://wwwppd.nrl.navy.mil/prediction/storms.html
There in the illustration you can see your clamps A & B, in the sun and charges are propelled by magnetic field, you are confusing battery ( or trying to wriggle out) with a charge particle moving in magnetic field .
2. Integrating over a huge volume, I am sure you meant huge surface.
And what do you think the surface (volume?) of the Earth’s magnetosphere is, not to mention Jupiter’s.
So let’s make it clear:
It is the axial electric current of billion of Amps originating in the solar surface propagating along a magnetic cloud (rope) into space, possibly interacting with a magnetosphere and returning back to the sun, along the loop of the same magnetic rope and closing the electric circuit in the sun.
Hence any interaction with a magnetosphere will be reflected back to the source, we call that feedback in this case electro-magnetic feedback.
I shall not respond any longer to your ‘Jupiter shine’ nonsense, and let’s forget about ‘no magnetic or electric change cann’t travel back to the sun.’, you can see it here precisely doing that; travelling back to the sun. http://solar.physics.montana.edu/REU/2008/ewolf/presentation/images/magnetic_cloud.jpg
Subject closed.

July 15, 2010 12:01 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
“My basic position is that, of course, solar variability has effects, they are just so tiny not to be of any significance in the climate debate.”
And that is a perfectly respectable position to take.
However in my lifetime I have seen the stratosphere cool when the sun was more active yet stop cooling and start to warm slightly when the sun became less active so I have doubts about your proposition despite the theory about the effects of CFCs and until my doubts are assuaged I will keep an open mind.
I intend to await real world events to resolve the issue because I have little faith in the historical data and that is a respectable position to take as well.
If the stratosphere continues to warm throughout a period of relative solar quiescence then you will be in difficulty. There is a limit to how long you could link such stratospheric temperature changes to the reduction in human CFCs.

July 15, 2010 12:06 pm

Vuk etc. says:
July 15, 2010 at 11:51 am
So let’s make it clear:
It is the axial electric current of billion of Amps originating in the solar surface propagating along a magnetic cloud (rope) into space, possibly interacting with a magnetosphere and returning back to the sun, along the loop of the same magnetic rope and closing the electric circuit in the sun.

The clear picture is that there is no such current. The current is generated locally [like the HCS].
Hence any interaction with a magnetosphere will be reflected back to the source, we call that feedback in this case electro-magnetic feedback.
Not at all, that interaction is purely local to the site of the interaction.
But if you consider your case closed, at least we’ll be spared any more.

July 15, 2010 12:08 pm

Leif:
In English the term ‘concedes’ is often used to mean ‘accepts’ or ‘agrees’ or even ‘states’.
I used it simply to stress that the potential planet moving power of the solar wind is not in dispute.
However, even if it can no longer move planets that fact on it’s own does not exclude all possibility of any effect on the atmospheres around planets.

July 15, 2010 12:16 pm

Vuk etc. says:
July 15, 2010 at 11:51 am
It is the axial electric current of billion of Amps originating in the solar surface propagating
If you would care to read Wolf’s presentation that you referred to: http://solar.physics.montana.edu/REU/2008/ewolf/presentation/
You might notice that nowhere does he talk about any huge electrical currents leaving the Sun. What happens is that energy is fed into the magnetic field which then is expelled as the cloud. Isn’t it a bit curious that he does not even once refer to any electrical current? In view of that, I can understand that you do not want to dig your hole any deeper. So, let the case be closed.

July 15, 2010 12:43 pm

Stephen Wilde says:
July 15, 2010 at 12:08 pm
In English the term ‘concedes’ is often used to mean ‘accepts’ or ‘agrees’ or even ‘states’.
Its usual meaning implies grudging defeat or surrender…
However, even if it can no longer move planets that fact on it’s own does not exclude all possibility of any effect on the atmospheres around planets.
That is decided by precise calculation of the size of the effect and on that basis excludes all possibilities.

July 15, 2010 12:52 pm

This is becoming tedious, Doc you are cornered and you know it: perhaps you should read it again:
A DOUBLE FLUX-ROPE MAGNETIC CLOUD
A magnetic cloud event observed August 12, 2000….
For this event, the total axial magnetic flux and
the total axial current bounded by the highlighted white contour line are 7.6 × 10^12 T-m2, and 1.1 × 10^9 A.
http://www.srl.caltech.edu/ACE/ACENews/ACENews66.html
From ACE; remember ACE, Deep Space Network, NASA people like that:
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ace/

July 15, 2010 12:58 pm

Leif Svalgaard:
“However, even if it can no longer move planets that fact on it’s own does not exclude all possibility of any effect on the atmospheres around planets.
That is decided by precise calculation of the size of the effect and on that basis excludes all possibilities.”
The size of the effect is only half the equation.
The other half is the sensitivity of the system to which it is applied and that opens up a whole can of worms because sensitivity is affected by multiple other factors and that is where we lack the data we need.

July 15, 2010 1:03 pm

Vuk etc. says:
July 15, 2010 at 12:52 pm
A DOUBLE FLUX-ROPE MAGNETIC CLOUD
The current is generated locally by the magnetic field just like the HCS. No huge current is leaving the Sun and returning after a detour to Jupiter. Once you understand that, it might [?] be clearer to you.

July 15, 2010 1:07 pm

Stephen Wilde says:
July 15, 2010 at 12:58 pm
The other half is the sensitivity of the system to which it is applied
The sensitivity can also be estimated, at least, by order of magnitude, and does not help as the stimulus is just too small. Systems with extreme sensitivity tend to end in run-aways. This has not [yet] happened to the Earth.

July 15, 2010 1:13 pm

Vuk etc. says:
July 15, 2010 at 12:52 pm
This is becoming tedious
Indeed
The reference you gave to explain your view:
from Navy’s article http://wwwppd.nrl.navy.mil/prediction/storms.html
does not mention electric currents at all.
REPLY: I agree, it is becoming tedious. And, you are all wrong, The sun is driven by vitamin enriched E. Coli with super powered mitochondrial elements that fuse hydrogen, all riding on a giant turtle. – A