Watch sunspot group 1158 form from nothing

Getting back to the dynamic pressure of CME’s, this “study shows that the speed of compression (within three seconds of impact) increases with the dynamic pressure of the CMEs, and that this speed exceeds the speed of the CMEs in some (five) cases (suggesting impulsive response) when the dynamic pressure of the CMEs exceed about 20 nPa. The magnetosphere is also found to undergo damped oscillations for about two minutes after the impact of some extreme CMEs (24 October 2003 and 29 October 2003) until the magnetic pressure outside and inside the magnetopause balances. The speed of compression is also found to increase with the negative IMF Bz of the CME suggesting that part of the compression is due to CME pressure and another part is due to magnetic reconnection.”
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUFMSM33C..01N
and this one says “the response of the magnetosphere and ionosphere to the coronal mass ejection (CME) events during the period 07–12 November 2004 is studied using Cluster and ground-based (ESR, EISCAT and Jicamarca radars and magnetometer) observations. The coordinated observations provide a good example of the magnetosphere–ionosphere coupling through prompt penetration electric field (PPEF). The strongest PPEF ever recorded appears to be generated in the magnetosphere by the v×B effect, which is mapped to the high latitude ionosphere along the geomagnetic field lines and promptly penetrated to low latitudes. The CMEs, though started with a weak front end (370 kms -1 and 3.3 nPa), attained velocities up to 800 kms -1, pressure up to 60 nPa and IMF components up to +-50nT. The impact of the CME compressed and deformed the magnetosphere such that Cluster, which was in the southern magnetospheric lobe, suddenly found itself in the magnetosheath. While crossing a compressed magnetosheath under steady solar wind pressure and steady velocity components, the magnetosphere shifted back to the Cluster position for about 1.5 h when IMF By1, which was negative before and after, became zero.”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VHB-4S98V3S-3&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2008&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1657194735&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=e01e57e5f9cb65f922ef37bfe2e1855e&searchtype=a
Do the statements above seem accurate/reasonable to you? It seems that the magnetosphere gets whacked around quite a bit by dynamic pressure, but I don’t know how this could impact Earth’s climate system. Do you think that the magnetosphere undergoing “damped oscillations for about two minutes after the impact of some extreme CMEs (24 October 2003 and 29 October 2003)” could send waves of any significance towards Earth?

Leif Svalgaard says: February 27, 2011 at 5:17 am
They are accurate, but have no impact on the climate. It is a question of energy and density. The magnetosphere is orders of magnitude less dense than the ionosphere, which is orders of magnitude less dense than the troposphere, which is orders of magnitude less dense than the oceans.
Per this paper “THE EFFECT OF SOLAR WIND DYNAMIC PRESSURE ON THE EARTH’S MAGNETOSPHERE” by C. T. Russell, G. Le, S. M. Petrinec and M. Ginskey
states that “a sudden compression of the magnetosphere launches both a compressional wave across field lines toward the Earth’s equator and a shear Alfven wave along magnetic field lines to the auroral ionosphere. The wave which causes the first ionospheric effect is not certain. Fast modes in general move faster than the Alfven velocity and the fast mode has a shorter path. However, the density of plasma in the equatorial plane is much greater than along the auroral field lines and thus the Alfven wave may arrive sooner.”
http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/effect_magsphere.pdf
Does this seem accurate? Can you explain and/or provide references on how increasing atmospheric density acts to diminish/dissipate the compressional and Alfven waves referenced? Do you know what happens to the energy?
Similar to the Vortex paper I cited earlier, “The Influence of the Solar Cycle and QBO on the Late-Winter Stratospheric Polar Vortex” this paper finds “SIGNALS OF SOLAR WIND DYNAMIC PRESSURE IN THE NORTHERN ANNULAR MODE AND THE EQUATORIAL STRATOSPHERIC QUASI-BIENNIAL OSCILLATION” By Hua Lua and Martin J. Jarvis. They “report statistically measurable responses of the Northern Annular Mode (NAM) and the equatorial stratospheric Quasi-biennial Oscillation (QBO) to solar wind dynamic pressure. When December to January solar wind dynamic pressure is high, the Northern Hemispheric (NH) circulation response is marked by a stronger polar vortex and weaker sub-tropical jet in the upper to middle stratosphere. As the winter progresses, the Arctic becomes colder and the jet anomalies shift poleward and downward. In spring, the polar stratosphere becomes anomalously warmer. At solar maxima, significant positive correlations are found between December to January solar wind dynamic pressure and the mid- to late winter NAM all the way from the surface to 20 hPa, implying a strengthened polar vortex, reduced Brewer-Dobson circulation and enhanced stratosphere-troposphere coupling. The combined effect of high solar UV irradiance and high solar wind dynamic pressure in the NH mid- to late winter is enhanced westerlies in the extratropics and weaker westerlies in the subtropics, indicating that more planetary waves are refracted towards the equator. At solar minima, there is no correlation in the NH winter but negative correlations between December to January solar wind dynamic pressure and the NAM are found only in the stratosphere during spring. Statistical evidence of a possible modulation of the equatorial stratospheric Quasi-biennial Oscillation (QBO) by the solar wind dynamic pressure is also provided. When solar wind dynamic pressure is high, the QBO at 30-70 hPa is found to be preferably more easterly during July to October. These lower stratospheric easterly anomalies are primarily linked to the high frequency component of solar wind dynamic pressure with periods shorter than 3-years. In annually and seasonally aggregated daily averages, the signature of solar wind dynamic pressure in the equatorial zonal wind is characterized by a vertical three-cell anomaly pattern with westerly anomalies both in the troposphere and the upper stratosphere and easterly anomalies in the lower stratosphere. This anomalous behavior in tropical winds is accompanied by a downward propagation of positive temperature anomalies from the upper stratosphere to the lower stratosphere over a period of a year. These results suggest that the solar wind dynamic pressure exerts a seasonal change of the tropical upwelling which results in a systemic modulation of the annual cycle in the lower stratospheric temperature, which in turn affects the QBO during Austral late winter and spring. These results suggest possible multiple solar inputs. Their combined effect in the stratosphere may cause refraction/redistribution of upward wave propagation and result in projecting the solar wind signals onto the NAM and the QBO. The route by which the effects of solar wind forcing might propagate to the lower atmosphere is yet to be understood.”
Here’s another paper by the same authors:
“Possible solar wind effect on the northern annular mode and northern hemispheric circulation during winter and spring” by Hua Lu, Martin J. Jarvis and Robert E. Hibbins that found “statistically measurable responses of atmospheric circulation to solar wind dynamic pressure are found in the Northern Hemisphere (NH) zonal-mean zonal wind and temperature, and on the Northern Annular Mode (NAM) in winter and spring. When December to January solar wind dynamic pressure (P sw DJ) is high, the circulation response is marked by a stronger polar vortex and weaker sub-tropical jet in the upper to middle stratosphere. As the winter progresses, the Arctic becomes colder and the jet anomalies shift poleward and downward. In spring, the polar stratosphere becomes anomalously warmer. At solar maxima, significant positive correlations are found between P swDJ and the middle to late winter NAM all the way from the surface to 20 hPa, implying a strengthened polar vortex, reduced Brewer–Dobson circulation and enhanced stratosphere-troposphere coupling. The combined effect of high solar UV irradiance and high solar wind dynamic pressure in the NH middle to late winter is enhanced westerlies in the extratropics and weaker westerlies in the subtropics, indicating that more planetary waves are refracted toward the equator. At solar minima, there is no correlation in the NH winter but negative correlations between P swDJ and the NAM are found only in the stratosphere during spring. These results suggest possible multiple solar inputs that may cause refraction/redistribution of upward wave propagation and result in projecting the solar wind signals onto the NAM. The route by which the effects of solar wind forcing might propagate to the lower atmosphere is yet to be understood.”
http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2008/2008JD010848.shtml
So it appears that there may be some correlations between solar wind dynamic pressure and the NAM and QBO, however, as you and they say, it appears that there is no known mechanism whereby ” the effects of solar wind forcing might propagate to the lower atmosphere.” Is this your interpretation as well?

Leif Svalgaard says: February 27, 2011 at 5:54 pm
These waves require an iononized medium to propagate, so do not penetrate below the ionosphere.
Break out training wheels, I’m on essentially new ground here. For anyone following along the ionosphere;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionosphere
is “a portion of the upper atmosphere, between the thermosphere;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermosphere
and the exosphere;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exosphere
distinguished because it is ionized by solar radiation.”
Here are various Real-Time Simulations of the Ionosphere-Thermosphere:
http://www2.nict.go.jp/y/y223/simulation/ion/index.html
About the energy: imagine you have a bullwhip [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullwhip ] and you hold it at the thin end and wiggle that thin end vigorously. The think end will hardly move at all… Try it.
Very good example, especially because the end of the bullwhip in this example is absurdly thin, i.e. “The highly diluted gas in this layer can reach 2,500 °C (4,530 °F) during the day. Even though the temperature is so high, one would not feel warm in the thermosphere, because it is so near vacuum that there is not enough contact with the few atoms of gas to transfer much heat. A normal thermometer would read significantly below 0 °C (32 °F), due to the energy lost by thermal radiation overtaking the energy acquired from the atmospheric gas by direct contact. Above 160 kilometres (99 mi), the anacoustic zone prevents the transmission of sound.”
this has been claimed from time to time. I do not find the data convincing and the authors have no idea how it might work.
Just throwing it out there, what do you know about Atmospheric Tides?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_tide
“The largest-amplitude atmospheric tides are mostly generated in the troposphere and stratosphere when the atmosphere is periodically heated as water vapour and ozone absorb solar radiation during the day. The tides generated are then able to propagate away from these source regions and ascend into the mesosphere and thermosphere. Atmospheric tides can be measured as regular fluctuations in wind, temperature, density and pressure. Although atmospheric tides share much in common with ocean tides they have two key distinguishing features:
1. Atmospheric tides are primarily excited by the Sun’s heating of the atmosphere whereas ocean tides are excited by the Moon’s gravitational pull and to a lesser extent by the Sun’s gravity. This means that most atmospheric tides have periods of oscillation related to the 24-hour length of the solar day whereas ocean tides have periods of oscillation related both to the solar day as well as to the longer lunar day (time between successive lunar transits) of about 24 hours 51 minutes.
2. Atmospheric tides propagate in an atmosphere where density varies significantly with height. A consequence of this is that their amplitudes naturally increase exponentially as the tide ascends into progressively more rarefied regions of the atmosphere (for an explanation of this phenomenon, see below). In contrast, the density of the oceans varies only slightly with depth and so there the tides do not necessarily vary in amplitude with depth.
At ground level, atmospheric tides can be detected as regular but small oscillations in surface pressure with periods of 24 and 12 hours. However, at greater heights the amplitudes of the tides can become very large. In the mesosphere (heights of ~ 50–100 km) atmospheric tides can reach amplitudes of more than 50 m/s and are often the most significant part of the motion of the atmosphere.’
The reason for this dramatic growth in amplitude from tiny fluctuations near the ground to oscillations that dominate the motion of the mesosphere lies in the fact that the density of the atmosphere decreases with increasing height. As tides or waves propagate upwards, they move into regions of lower and lower density. If the tide or wave is not dissipating, then its kinetic energy density must be conserved. Since the density is decreasing, the amplitude of the tide or wave increases correspondingly so that energy is conserved.”
“The tides form an important mechanism for transporting energy input into the lower atmosphere from the upper atmosphere, while dominating the dynamics of the mesosphere and lower thermosphere. Therefore, understanding the atmospheric tides is essential in understanding the atmosphere as a whole. Modeling and observations of atmospheric tides are needed in order to monitor and predict changes in the Earth’s atmosphere.”
Understanding that this is Wikipedia, does the last paragraph make any sense to you?
Is it conceivable that solar impacts on the ionosphere could serve to influence/resist/bounce upward propagating atmosphere tides, as to alter wave behavior/circulation in the mesosphere?
“There are correlations between the National Debt and Global Warming”
No argument there, correlations don’t prove a thing, but they can be helpful in finding mechanisms that do.
This happens in cycles, but don’t impact the climate [energy again].
But there is a change in energy, i.e. gravity. Not saying that the Sun and Moon’s gravity is changing, but rather as the configuration of the Sun and Moon change over the Saros cycle, there are changes in the distribution of gravitational energy impacting earth. Changes in the distribution gravitational energy can impact the climate by affecting ocean circulations, e.g. upwellings, as well as atmospheric circulation.
So we don’t even have agreed upon data sets. Hardly a good basis for correlations.
No argument, every correlation with “global temperature” must be looked at with a jaundiced eye. It is such an absurdly complex measurement to make accuartly and current measurement methods are rudimentary at best.
Those others are extremely rare. Show me some. I know of only one on this Blog [Carsten A.] who has seen the light, and that was only because he himself looked at the problem, not because the solution was communicated to him. Such people would on their own clear up thire misconceptions, eventually.
I have no examples from WUWT, but I tend not to spend much time on those who have already made up their minds and have made up their minds poorly. I try to provide information the undecideds, as well as to those who are in a position to provide the information to other undecideds. With that said, outside of WUWT, one of my varied areas of expertise is change management, and I’ve found that, in many cases, it’s all about the delivery. With that said, I do come across those with closed minds who are no longer receptive to new inputs and information. In such cases I’ve learned to rapidly identify these individuals and not waste my time and energy on them.

Leif Svalgaard says: February 28, 2011 at 10:54 pm
“what do you know about Atmospheric Tides?”
They, of course, are not determining factors for the climate.
How are you defining a “determining factor”? Do you think that Atmospheric Tides may be influenced by changes in dynamic pressure?
No, that is not how gravity works. All the bodies in question are in free fall and feel no forces. The tides come about because of the finite size of the Earth that makes the gravitational potential slightly different on opposite sides of the Earth.
I agree that they are all in free fall, or else the gravity of the Sun, Earth and Moon would draw all of the bodies together, however, based on my research, different parts of Earth experience/feel different gravitational forces based upon their continually evolving proximity to the sun and moon, i.e.;
“The arrows in the top diagram pointing toward the moon represent the force of the moon’s gravity at these three points. Since the force of gravity depends on distance, point A is attracted to the moon most strongly, point C least strongly, and point B at intermediate strength.”
http://www.princeton.edu/~pccm/outreach/scsp/water_on_earth/tides/science/causes.htm
“The relative distances and positions of the sun, moon and earth all affect the size and magnitude of the earth’s two tidal bulges.”
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/education.html
The Saros cycle is about the line up between directions to the Sun and Moon as seen from the Earth, not about different ‘gravitational energy’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saros_cycle
I am arguing that different “relative distances and positions of the sun, moon and earth” result in different distributions of sun and moon’s gravitational energy across Earth. Earth’s Oceans are impacted by variations in the position of the sun and moon relative to earth e.g. during a Neap Tide;
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/viewer.aspx?path=hm&name=A4neapti
and Spring Tide;
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/viewer.aspx?path=hm&name=A4sptide
variations in the position of the moon relative to earth due to the inclination of the lunar orbit that results in Lunar Nodes. “Every 27.5 days the Moon completes a ‘nodal’ cycle. The Sun, Moon, and planets have a similar background of stars in their cycles but the Moon’s trajectory is 5 degrees from that of the Sun. This means that there are two points at which these two apparent orbits seem to cross. These are known as the ascending, or North node (or the Dragon’s head) and the descending or South node (Dragon’s tail).””The lunar nodes precess rather quickly around the ecliptic, completing a revolution (called a draconitic or nodical period, the period of nutation) in 6793.5 days or 18.5996 years (note that this is not the saros eclipse cycle)”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_node
and the distance of the moon and/or sun from Earth, e.g. during a Perigean Spring Tide;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perigean_spring_tide
In addition to the 6585.3213 day Saros Cycle and almost 19,756 day Triple Saros, there is also the 10,571.95 days Inex Cycle that, “Unlike the saros cycle, the inex is not close to an integer number of anomalistic months so successive eclipses are not very similar in their appearance and characteristics. From the remainder of 0.67351, being near 2/3, every third eclipse will have a similar position in the moon’s elliptical orbit and apparent diameter, so the quality of the solar eclipse (total versus annular) will repeat in these groupings of 3 cycles (87 years minus 2 months).”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inex
The combined cycles of the Saros and Inex Cycles can be visualized here:
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/image/SEpanoramaGvdB-big.JPG
And then layer on top of this,” A Saros series doesn’t last indefinitely because the three lunar months are not perfectly commensurate with one another. In particular, the Moon’s node shifts eastward by about 0.5º with each cycle. A typical Saros series for a solar eclipse begins when new Moon occurs ~18° east of a node. If the first eclipse occurs at the Moon’s descending node, the Moon’s umbral shadow will pass ~3500 km below Earth and a partial eclipse will be visible from the south polar region. On the following return, the umbra will pass ~300 km closer to Earth and a partial eclipse of slightly larger magnitude will result. After ten or eleven Saros cycles (about 200 years), the first central eclipse will occur near the south pole of Earth. Over the course of the next 950 years, a central eclipse occurs every 18.031 years (= Saros) but will be displaced northward by an average of ~300 km. Halfway through this period, eclipses of long duration will occur near the equator. The last central eclipse of the series occurs near the north pole. The next approximately ten eclipses will be partial with successively smaller magnitudes. Finally, the Saros series will end a dozen or more centuries after it began at the opposite pole. Due to the ellipticity of the orbits of Earth and the Moon, the exact duration and number of eclipses in a complete Saros is not constant. A series may last 1226 to 1550 years and is comprised of 69 to 87 eclipses, of which about 40 to 60 are central (i.e., total, hybrid or annular).
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/SEsaros.html
We also have to take into account Earth’s rotation “The angular speed of Earth’s rotation in inertial space is (7.2921150 ± 0.0000001) ×10−5 radians per SI second (mean solar second).[11] Multiplying by (180°/π radians)×(86,400 seconds/mean solar day) yields 360.9856°/mean solar day, indicating that Earth rotates more than 360° relative to the fixed stars in one solar day. Earth’s movement along its nearly circular orbit while it is rotating once around its axis requires that Earth rotate slightly more than once relative to the fixed stars before the mean Sun can pass overhead again, even though it rotates only once (360°) relative to the mean Sun.[n 4] Multiplying the value in rad/s by Earth’s equatorial radius of 6,378,137 m (WGS84 ellipsoid) (factors of 2π radians needed by both cancel) yields an equatorial speed of 465.1 m/s, 1,674.4 km/h or 1,040.4 mi/h.[17]”;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_rotation
changes in this rotation, “Over millions of years, the rotation is significantly slowed by gravitational interactions with the Moon: see tidal acceleration. However some large scale events, such as the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, have caused the rotation to speed up by around 3 microseconds.[21] Post-glacial rebound, ongoing since the last Ice age, is changing the distribution of the Earth’s mass thus affecting the Moment of Inertia of the Earth and, by the Conservation of Angular Momentum, the Earth’s rotation period.”;
as well as changes in Earth’s Elliptical Orbit around the Sun (Eccentricity), Tilt (Obliquity) and Wobble (Axial precession), i.e. Milankovitch cycles, whereby “the Earth’s axis completes one full cycle of precession approximately every 26,000 years. At the same time the elliptical orbit rotates more slowly. The combined effect of the two precessions leads to a 21,000-year period between the seasons and the orbit. In addition, the angle between Earth’s rotational axis and the normal to the plane of its orbit, obliquity, moves from 22.1 degrees to 24.5 degrees and back again on a 41,000-year cycle; currently, this angle is 23.44 degrees and is decreasing.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
My point is simply that the sun and moon’s gravitational energy are important extraterrestrial variables in Earth’s climate system and should thus be acknowledged and accounted for.

Leif Svalgaard says: March 5, 2011 at 11:40 am
The direction is the important factor for this. Any distance effect is second order.
I think I agree with you. By “direction” do you mean the “position” of the sun and moon in relation to earth?
This has absolutely nothing to to with anything, being just that the Earth advances steadily in its orbit during a day, so makes the day 4 minutes longer.
Yes it does. If Earth wasn’t rotating then the effects of the sun and moon’s gravitational energy would be easier to identify and measure. Layering lunar orbit and cycles, on top of Earth’s orbit and cycles in order to identify the gravity effects at each location on Earth is very complex. i.e.:
“As we have seen, tides are caused by the attraction of the Moon and Sun on water particles near the surface of the Earth. Since the orbits of the Moon around the Earth, and of the Earth around the Sun, are elliptical, the effects are variable in strength, like the resulting tides. The redeeming feature is that every aspect of each motion has a corresponding periodicity to which tidal variations can be related. The pages-long equation describing the paths of celestial bodies, a masterpiece of human ingenuity, was first set out by Louis Lagrange (1736-1813) and Pierre Simon de Laplace (1749-1827).”
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3349/is_1_40/ai_n29150030/
Adding Earth’s rotation into the equation adds significant additional complexity.
No doubt, but is hardly of interest for the current climate debate.
I am not really interested in the current climate debate at the moment. I am compiling a summary of all of the variables in Earth’s climate system, which I eventually plan to turn into a WUWT reference page.
Apart from the Milankowitch cycles, it has not been demonstrated that the other cycles have any influence, so we can’t ‘account’ for their influence.
“The Arctic Ocean as a Coupled Oscillating System to the Forced 18.6 Year Lunar Gravity Cycle” by Harald Yndestad, in Nonlinear Dynamics in Geosciences
2007:
“A wavelet spectrum analysis of an extensive historical Arctic data series concludes that we may be able to understand Arctic climate dynamics as an oscillation system coupled to the forced 18.6 yr lunar nodal gravity cycle. This paper presents the results from a wavelet spectrum analysis of the data series which included polar movement, Arctic ice extent and the inflow of North Atlantic Water to the Norwegian Sea. The investigation shows a correlation better than R = 0.6 between the astronomic 18.6 yr lunar nodal gravity cycle and identified 18 yr dominant cycles in the data series. The identified 18 yr cycles have phase – reversals synchronized to a 74 yr sub – harmonic lunar nodal cycle.”
http://www.springerlink.com/content/t6831r104371u3j4/
“A possible cause for the large temperature fluctuations in the North Atlantic Water is the tidal oscillations resulting from gravity effects between the earth, moon and sun (Yndestad, Turrell and Ozhigin 2004). A gravity effect between these three bodies results in a set of long orbital cycles that may introduce climate oscillations on the earth (Pettersson 1915; Currie 1984; Imbrie and Imbrie 1980; Satterley 1996; Yndestad 2006.) An oscillating gravity effect on the climate fluctuations implies that there may be a coupled oscillation between gravity cycles and Arctic climate. This study investigates the relationship between the astronomic 18.6 yr lunar nodal tide and dominant cycles in polar motion, North Atlantic Water and Arctic ice extent. The investigation concludes that the Arctic climate variability can be thought of as an oscillator coupled to the forced 18.6 yr lunar nodal gravity cycle. This coupled oscillation has temporary harmonic cycles in which interference between cycles may introduce phase-reversals.”
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=-DLT_oqrs2gC&oi=fnd&pg=PA281&ots=yGbmOA3lr7&sig=gU4Zcem4Z_iQGBoVsZlq4YHuQuo#v=onepage&q&f=false
To my knowledge these cycles are not used in any serious weather forecasting.
You are probably right, I doubt that the Met Office and Mark Serreze at NSIDC are using these cycles in their “serious weather forecasting”… 🙂
Perhaps the use of ‘gravitational energy’ is unwise.
Why?

Leif Svalgaard says: February 27, 2011 at 6:50 pm
“It seems that their Figure 4 is the crucial one. It shows [well-known] that dynamic pressure and F10.7 [UV proxy] are anti-correlated, more UV, less pressure. The ‘correlation’ with NAM does not impress me at all. Although I know Jarvis and he is a good scientist, this paper does not live up to his standard.”
I think Figs 6, 8 and 11 are the important ones:
“Fig. 6 shows the correlations between Psw DJ and the January, February, and March NAM (1st, 2nd, and 3rd columns), and January through March mean NAM (4th column) when Fs DJ is high; results are shown where NCEP-NAM (upper panels) and the ERA40-NAM are used (lower panels). It shows that for individual months and the Jan-Mar average, similar vertical correlation patterns hold for either the NCEP-NAM or the ERA40-NAM at all the pressure levels below 10 hPa. From the surface to 20 hPa, the January and February NAMs are highly correlated to Psw DJ, while weaker correlations are found in March. The highest correlations are found in February with maximum correlation coefficient rmax = 0.8 at 200 hPa, and r > 0.5 all the way from 1000 hPa to 50 hPa. In January and March, the vertical pattern of the correlations shows a double-peak altitude profile with one peak near the surface and another near 100-200 hPa, with a minimum 300-400 hPa. The correlation coefficients between Psw DJ and NAM JFM are greater than > 0.5 all the way upwards from the surface to 20 hPa with confidence levels > 98%, with a maximum correlation of 0.8 at 100-200 hPa. Above 20 hPa, however, the correlations are small and statistically insignificant.”
“Fig. 8 shows the correlation between Psw DJ and Jan-Feb mean UJF extracted at 60°N, 150 hPa (left panel), and Jan-Feb mean TJF at 80°N, 200 hPa (right panel), at HS. Strikingly clear positive and negative correlations are shown for UJF and TJF, respectively, suggesting that a colder and stronger lower stratospheric polar vortex is present when Psw DJ is high. At those locations, the maximum differences are up to 14 m s-1 in UJF and 12 K in TJF.”
“Fig. 11 shows the correlations between Psw DJ and the March mean ERA40-NAM at LS. It shows that significant negative correlations between Psw DJ and March mean NAM exist in the stratosphere and the correlation peaks at ~7 hPa with rmin = -0.65. No significant correlation is found in the troposphere, presumably implying a lack of coupling from the stratosphere to the troposphere.”
I also thought the following paragraphs are worthy of additional scrutiny;
“The total solar irradiance varies by about 0.1%, while the solar radiation in the ultraviolet (UV) part of the spectrum varies by about 5−8% over an 11-year solar cycle (11-yr SC) [Lean, et al., 1997]. The UV radiative forcing is strongest near the stratopause, where the solar UV is most effectively absorbed by ozone [Haigh, 2003; Hood, 2004]. As a result of insitu photolysis in the upper stratosphere, higher solar UV inputs at solar maxima cause thermal perturbations by increasing the temperature gradient between the tropics and the winter pole [Haigh, 1994; 1996]. In turn, it alters the upward propagation of planetary-scale waves as well as the Brewer-Dobson (BD) circulation, resulting in a strengthened polar vortex and dynamic feedback in the lower atmosphere [Kodera and Kuroda, 2002]. Numerous studies have revealed compelling evidence for the signature of the 11-yr SC in atmospheric wind and temperature [Labitzke and van Loon, 1988; Shindell, et al., 1999; Matthes, et al., 2004; Crooks and Gray, 2005; Labitzke, et al., 2006; Salby and Callaghan, 2006; Camp and Tung, 2007].”
“Possible solar influences on the NAM have been reported in the literature. Ruzmaikin and Feynman [2002] found that the NAM was skewed more negatively all the way vertically through the stratosphere and troposphere during the winters when solar activity is low (LS), while no clear tendency in the NAM was detected when solar activity is high (HS). Kodera [2002; 2003] found that the spatial pattern of the winter NAO is confined to the Atlantic sector at LS, whereas it shows a hemispherical structure at HS. Ogi et al. [2003] showed that the spring/summer circulation correlates well with the previous winter NAO at HS, whereas no significant correlation was found at LS. Gimeno et al. [2003] found that the NAO is positively correlated to the Northern Hemisphere (NH) surface temperature during HS winters, while no significant correlation was found during LS winters. These observational studies seem to suggest that the 11-yr SC modulates the NAM in a systematic manner. Such a modulation is intriguing as no direct causal mechanism connecting the 11-yr SC and the NAM has been obtained.”
“Correlations have been found between solar wind driven geomagnetic activity and
atmospheric variables including temperature, geopotential height and the NAO [Boberg and Lundstedt, 2002; 2003; Thejll, et al., 2003; Palamara and Bryant, 2004; Bochnicek and Hejda, 2005]. For the period of 1973 to 2000, Boberg and Lundstedt [2002; 2003] showed that the variation of the winter NAO is positively correlated with the electric field strength of the solar wind, and suggested a solar wind generated electromagnetic disturbance in the ionosphere may dynamicly propagate downward to affect the NAO. For the period from the mid-1970s to the late 1990s, Bochnicek and Hejda [2005] found that the winter NAO is more positive when the geomagnetic index Ap is high, in line with the results of Boberg and Lundstedt [2002; 2003]. It is, however, apparent that a multi-decadal scale modulation of the relationship between the NAO and geomagnetic activity may exist, as the correlation tends to wax and wane over time-scales of a few decades [Bucha and Bucha, 1998; Thejll, et al., 2003; Palamara and Bryant, 2004]. Lu et al. [2007] demonstrated that there were multiple solar influences on atmospheric temperature, with both solar irradiance and solar wind drivers playing a role. They used the Ap index [Mayaud, 1980] as a measure of geomagnetic activity, which is indirectly dependent upon the solar wind characteristics. They showed that, for the period 1958-2004, the magnitude of the temperature response in the troposphere and the lower stratosphere to the geomagnetic Ap index is at least comparable to that associated with solar irradiance over the 11-yr SC.”
“The transfer of energy from the solar wind to the Earth system is a complex process and can depend upon various solar wind parameters [Wang, et al., 2006]. Palmroth et al. [2004] have presented direct evidence for the dependence of Joule heating, generated by currents in Earth’s upper atmosphere, on solar wind dynamic pressure. These currents are driven in the outer magnetosphere by solar wind action and connect to make a circuit through the auroral zones in the lower thermosphere region where they dissipate energy. They can be divided into ‘region 1’ currents that flow down into the dawnside and up from the duskside of the higher latitude auroral zone and ‘region 2’ shielding currents, with the opposite sense to ‘region 1’ currents, which flow into and out of the lower latitude auroral zone. Palmroth et al. [2004] pointed out that both the ‘region 2’ currents and the weaker ‘region 1’ currents are highly correlated with magnetospheric pressure changes which are, in turn, balanced with changes in the solar wind dynamic pressure. They showed (their Fig 4) through magnetohydrodynamic numerical simulation that the Joule heating from these current systems is approximately proportional to the solar wind dynamic pressure. Hence, if solar wind geo-effectiveness is determined by the subsequent dissipation of magnetospheric energy into the neutral atmosphere through Joule heating, then the solar wind dynamic pressure can be used as a proxy for this geo-effectiveness.”
“The importance of the solar wind dynamic pressure in transferring energy from the solar wind to the Earth’s atmosphere has been demonstrated by several authors. Shue and Kamide [2001] showed that, in a magnetic cloud, increasing solar wind density intensified the auroral electrojets for both southward and northward interplanetary magnetic field (IMF). Boudouridis et al. [2003] demonstrated that, under IMF southward conditions, the solar wind dynamic pressure increases widened the auroral oval and decreased the polar cap size. Lu et al. [2004] reported that compressional waves from within the solar wind dynamic pressure enhancements could lead to penetration of solar wind matter and energy across the magnetopause into the magnetosphere. Palmroth et al. [2007] analyzed 236 solar wind pressure pulses separated into two groups, dependent upon whether the solar wind magnetic field increased or decreased at the time of the pressure pulse. They showed that both groups transfer energy to the magnetosphere; although coupling efficiency decreased when the magnetic field increased, and vice versa, the coupling energy within the pressure pulses with increased magnetic field remained the larger. Zhou and Tsurutani [1999] have shown that sudden increases in the solar wind dynamic pressure can generate global disturbances with Auroral activity appearing on the dayside and propagating to the nightside with ionospheric speeds consistent with the solar wind pressure pulse speed. In support of this, the inverse effect has been observed by Liou et al. [2006] whereby decreasing pressure pulses lead to a rapid extinguishing of auroral activity. Observations by Laundal and Østgaard [2008] indicate that the causative mechanism behind proton aurora precipitation during high dynamic pressure is connected to the compression of the magnetosphere, which is directly related to the solar wind dynamic pressure.”
http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/5932/1/LuJarvisHibbins_2008JD010848_JGR_NORA.pdf

Leif Svalgaard says: March 6, 2011 at 9:23 am
That was not the issue [which you tried to demonstrate by quoting many decimals of irrelevant stuff] as to whether the difference between the siderial day and the synodic day was important, which it is not.
No. It is the combination of Earth’s rotation, Earth’s orbit around the Sun, Earth’s tilt, Earth’s wobble and the Moon’s orbit around Earth. These variables act in concert to determine the constantly evolving “Gravitational Effect” on Earth.
As I said, your bar is much lower than mine.
For this exercise, as I said, “You stick to the null hypothesis, I’ll stick to the imagine every possibility approach, and let’s see if there any surprises in between.” thus my bar is necessarily lower. However, in this particular instance, the more I read, the higher the bar goes. Gravitational Effects on Earth’s climate system appear well researched, supported and established within the literature, i.e.:
“With the culmination of the 18.6-year cycle of the Moon in 2006 and again in 2024-25, also called the Major Lunar Standstill, we are afforded the unique opportunity to observe the monthly, annual, and 18.6-year wanderings of the Moon. The 18.6-year cycle is caused by the precession of the plane of the lunar orbit, while this orbit maintains a 5° tilt relative to the ecliptic. At the peak of this cycle, the Moon’s declination swings from -28.8° to +28.8° each month. What this means is that each month for the years 2005-2007 and also 2023-2026, the Moon can be seen rising and setting more northerly and also more southerly than the solar extremes, and will transit monthly with altitudes which are higher in the sky than the summer Sun and lower in the sky than the winter Sun.”
http://www.umass.edu/sunwheel/pages/moonteaching.html
“Lunar cycles are varied and extremely complex and yet the moon has more effect on the earth than any other body except the Sun. Not only are ocean tides important in shaping the earth, and are affected more by the moon than the Sun, but tides in the air are important for determining the weather which in turn affects so many other variables from plants and crops, to animals and the economy.”
“As was mentioned the 18.6 year cycle is important in determining the weather as is half of this, or 9.3 years. These cycles can be found in crop yields and in geological formations. However the moon is gradually receding from the earth which changes all of these periods very slowly. Professor Afanasiev of Moscow University has designed a method that he calls “Nanocycles method” of very accurately dating geological formations by finding the period which is presently 9.3 years and its interaction with the seasons. The 9.3 year cycle comes at the same time of year on average every 31 years because 9.3/.3 = 31. The nearest repeat of the seasons will actually happen after 28 years 2/3 of the time and 37 years 1/3 of the time. However this 31 years cyle of seasonal interaction of the is very sensitive to small changes because when the cycle was 9.2 years the interaction was in 9.2/.2 = 46 years. Professor Afanasiev has used this to accurately date deposits and so determine other geological cycles very accurately.”
http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-astronomy/lunar.shtml
Science, “18.6-Year Earth Tide Regulates Geyser Activity” by John S. Rinehart, 1972
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1972Sci…177..346R
Journal of Geophysical Research, “The 18.6-Year Cycle of Sea Surface Temperature in Shallow Seas Due to Variations in Tidal Mixing” by John W. Loder and Christopher Garrett, 1978:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1978/JC083iC04p01967.shtml
Journal of Geophysical Research, “PERIODIC (18.6-YEAR) AND CYCIJC (11-YEAR) INDUCED DROUGHT AND FLOOD IN WESTERN NORTH AMERICA” by Robert Guinn Currie, 1984:
http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/1984/JD089iD05p07215.shtml
Climatic Change “Reconstruction of seasonal temperatures in Central Canada since A.D. 1700 and detection of the 18.6- and 22-year signals” by Joel Guiot 1987:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/q76vw37g22557105/
International Journal of Climatology “18.6-year luni-solar nodal and 10–11-year solar signals in rainfall in India”, by Kumares Mitra and S. N. Dutta, 1992:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.3370120807/abstract
Journal of Geophysical Research, “High-Latitude Oceanic Variability Associated With the 18.6-Year Nodal Tide” by Thomas C. Royer, 1993:
http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/1993/92JC02750.shtml
International Journal of Climatology, “Luni-solar 18.6- and solar cycle 10–11-year signals in USA air temperature records” by Robert G. Currie, 1993:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.3370130103/abstract
IBM Research Center “Moon-Earth-Sun: The oldest three-body problem” by Martin C. Gutzwiller, 1998:
http://rmp.aps.org/abstract/RMP/v70/i2/p589_1
Earth, Moon, and Planets “Lunar Influences On Climate” by Dario Camuffo, 2001:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/nq3376562761675r/
American Meteorological Society “Millennial Climate Variability: Is There a Tidal Connection? by Walter Munk, Matthew Dzieciuch and Steven Jayne, 2002:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%282002%29015%3C0370%3AMCVITA%3E2.0.CO%3B2
Geophysical Research Letters “The impacts of the Luni-Solar oscillation on the Arctic oscillation” by Renato Ramos da Silva and Roni Avissar, 2005:
http://www.duke.edu/~renato/RamosdaSilvaandAvissarGRL2005.pdf
Geophysical Research Letters “Possible explanation linking 18.6-year period nodal tidal cycle with bi-decadal variations of ocean and climate in the North Pacific” by
Ichiro Yasuda, Satoshi Osafune and Hiroaki Tatebe, 2006:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005GL025237.shtml
Journal of Geophysical Research “The 18.6-year lunar nodal cycle and surface temperature variability in the northeast Pacific” by Stewart M. McKinnell and William R. Crawford, 2007:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006JC003671.shtml
Deep Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers “Lunar nodal tide effects on variability of sea level, temperature, and salinity in the Faroe-Shetland Channel and the Barents Sea” by Harald Yndestad, William R. Turrell and Vladimir Ozhigin, 2008:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008DSRI…55.1201Y
Nature Geoscience “Significant contribution of the 18.6 year tidal cycle to regional coastal changes” by N. Gratiot, E. J. Anthony, A. Gardel, C. Gaucherel, C. Proisy & J. T. Wells, 2008:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n3/abs/ngeo127.html
Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography “The influence of long tides on ecosystem dynamics in the Barents Sea” by Harald Yndestad, 2009:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009DSR….56.2108Y
Given the large body of research that appears to support the influence of longer-term lunar and solar Gravitational Effects on Earth’s climate system, I am struggling to understand where your bar is on this matter. Can you please further elucidate your position such that I can identify the specific references that will most effectively address it?
Perhaps the use of ‘gravitational energy’ is unwise.
“Why?”
Because strictly speaking there may not be such a thing
The nature of gravity is very interesting subject, and one that I am interested to hear your thoughts on, but first I want to figure out how Earth’s climate system works. I admittedly don’t have much basis for “gravitational energy” other then the Wikipedia page that includes the quote you cited;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_energy
and an initial desire to try to classify each variable in Earth’s climate system in terms of energy. As such, I am certainly open to more accurate terminology. What do you think the appropriate term for it is; Gravitational Effect, Gravitational Force or otherwise?

Leif Svalgaard says: March 11, 2011 at 7:47 pm
I’m sure you can find hundreds such papers, but that does not establish any effect on the climate [and none is generally accepted].
I disagree, I think that tidal forces effects on Earth’s climate are established and generally accepted, e.g.:
“Climate: Present, Past and Future: Fundamentals and Climate Now” By H. H. Lamb, 1972:
“Maksimov and Smirnov (1965) have calculated the changes in the mean slope of the surface of the North Atlantic Ocean from 45 degrees to 75 degrees N for the Januarys and Julys of the period 1870 – 1970 caused by lunar declination: the slope varies from about 6.5 cm upward in the years of maximum lunar declination named to 6.5 downward in the intervening minimum declination years. The authors believe that the corresponding differences of gradient force in the ocean surface must entail differences in the polarward component of ocean currents, and they found oscillations of about 19-year period and amplitude generally 0.2 – 0.4 degrees C superposed on the longer-term secular changes in the water surface temperatures of the North Atlantic between 55 degrees and 67 degrees.”
“Rawson (1907, 1908, 1909) drew attention to the apparent existence of approximately 19 and 9 1/2 years cycles in the average latitudes of the subtropical high-pressure belts of the northern and southern hemispheres and in the occurrence of droughts recorded in South Africa from A.D. 1622 to 1900 and in Argentina from 1827 to 1900, such droughts being presumably connected with a persistent north or south displacement of the subtropical anticyclone belt.”
http://books.google.com/books?id=-lJ6XesnYYAC&pg=PA218&lpg=PA218&dq=climate+tidal+force&source=bl&ots=cweznANPfq&sig=s58VumcCKXPp0KedSRfAFPzHdyk&hl=en&ei=eLN7Td6AFpOI0QGr6tTYAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&sqi=2&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=climate%20tidal%20force&f=false
As you’ve said, the literature is littered with references supporting the mechanics of tidal forces and their varied effects on Earth’s climate system. However, I think that the establishment bar you may be referring to is the demonstration of predictive capacity based upon tidal forces and sometimes, for the good of science, one has to try to poke holes in one’s own hypotheses. So I thought, if some organization today is leveraging tidal influences for predictive purposes, it would be the Farmer’s Almanac. “Founded in 1818, the Farmers’ Almanac’s timeless appeal has spanned three centuries, offering readers a trademark blend of long-range weather predictions, humor, fun facts, and valuable advice on gardening, cooking, fishing, conservation, and much more.”
http://www.farmersalmanac.com/about/farmers-almanac-history/
So I did some research and found an August 30th, 2010 Associated Press article based on interviews with Farmer’s Almanac Editors Sandi Duncan and Peter Geiger, that included this bold forecast:
“Good news, winter haters: After record snowfall in the mid-Atlantic and unusually cold weather down South, the Farmers’ Almanac is predicting a “kinder and gentler” winter.
After eyeing the skies, tidal action and sunspots, the folks at the 194-year-old publication say in their 2011 edition going on sale Monday that it’ll be cold but nothing like last winter, when 49 states saw snow and it got so cold in Florida that iguanas fell out of trees.
“Overall, it looks like it’s going to be a kinder and gentler winter, especially in the areas that had a rough winter last year,” said managing editor Sandi Duncan.”
“The Farmers’ Almanac, which claims 80 to 85 percent accuracy and says it correctly forecast heavy snow in Middle Atlantic states last winter, bases its predictions on a secret mathematical formula using the position of the planets, tidal action of the moon and sunspots.
Ed O’Lenic from NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center said the scientific community doesn’t accept tides, planetary alignment and sunspots as effective predictors of temperature or precipitation, but he stopped short of calling the almanac’s meteorological methods a bunch of hooey.
“In science you have to have an open mind. Someday, someone could conceivably find some scintilla of evidence that it’s useful,” O’Lenic, chief of the operations branch, said of the almanac’s methodology. “For the time being, we have to stick with what produces results for us.”
“For the record, NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center anticipates a warmer-than-normal winter for the mid-Atlantic and Southeast and colder-than-normal weather in the Northwest. That puts it at odds with the almanac, which calls for mild temperatures in the Northwest and cold in the Southeast.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38906421/ns/weather/
Ouch, we’ll that’s not very encouraging, both the Farmer’s Almanac and NOAA seem to have failed in their forecasts, but wait. There’s another Farmer’s Almanac, it’s the Old Farmer’s Almanac, published “since 1792, The Old Farmer’s Almanac has spoken to all walks of life: tide tables for those who live near the ocean; sunrise and planting charts for those who live on the farm; recipes for those who live in the kitchen; and forecasts for those who don’t like the question of weather left up in the air.”
And here is the Old Farmer’s Almanac Atlantic Corridor Annual Weather Summary for November 2010 to October 2011:
“Winter will be colder and drier than normal, on average, with below-normal snowfall in New England and above-normal snowfall elsewhere. The coldest periods will be in mid-December, January, and mid-February. The snowiest periods will be in early January and mid- and late February.”
http://www.almanac.com/weather/longrange/region/us/2
Hmmm, “with below-normal snowfall in New England” according to a January 28, 2011 Boston Globe article “In Somerville, New England’s most densely populated city, some snowbanks are so tall that they deflect the plume of snow cleared by plow trucks and send it sliding back down to the street, said Michael Meehan, a city spokesman. Between storms, crews have been trying to clear snow piles and dump them on basketball courts, while the real estate trust planning a 50-acre redevelopment at Assembly Square has offered the city private land for use as a snow farm.”
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/01/28/region_isnt_taking_massive_snow_accumulation_lightly/
In terms of The Old Farmer’s Almanac forecast that “The coldest periods will be in mid-December, January, and mid-February.” here are Weekly Mean Temperatures for the Northeast:
Week-Ending | Mean Temperature | Anomaly
20101204 | 33.76 | 0.90
20101211 | 26.15 | -4.02
20101218 | 23.80 | -4.01
20101225 | 22.68 | -3.12
20110101 | 24.45 | 0.35
20110108 | 24.73 | 2.00
20110115 | 22.28 | 0.37
20110122 | 20.86 | -0.54
20110129 | 19.89 | -1.64
20110205 | 19.93 | -2.15
20110212 | 20.84 | -2.22
20110219 | 25.70 | 1.20
20110226 | 26.21 | -0.20
20110305 | 28.28 | -0.41
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/temp-and-precip/us-weekly/wkly.temps.dat
I guess that you could call December 5th – 25th “mid-December”, but the first half of January had the warmest anomaly of an otherwise freezing winter and “mid-February” i.e. Feb 13th – 19th, was actually the only positive anomaly in the month of February.
In summary, the forecasts of Farmer’s Almanac, Old Farmer’s Almanac and NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center all appear to be highly suspect. The existence of tidal forces, and that they influence Earth’s climate system does appear established, however the specific influences, how they interface with all of the other climactic variables and reliable predictive capacity leveraging tidal forces does not appear established.
The proper term would be ‘tidal forces’.
Corrected. Thanks