Just a quick note to bring this to attention of readers. I have not been able to locate a copy of this paper other than the paywalled one at Springerlink, so I can’t comment much about it, but it looks interesting. The question is what is the mechanism? The abstract really doesn’t give a hint of that and just saying that “anomalously low solar activity” is the cause really isn’t definitive enough. – Anthony
The dynamics of solar activity and anomalous weather of summer 2010: 2. Relationship with the active longitude zone; effects in the west and east
(Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, Volume 52, Number 1, pp. 1-15, February 2012)
– K. G. Ivanov, A. F. Kharshiladze
Abstract:
“We confirm the close synoptic relationship of the sectoral structure of the Sun’s magnetic field of the with the near-Earth tropospheric pressure with a case study of three European points (Troitsk, Rome, Jungfrau) in the period of the anomalously hot summer of June–August 2010.
We substantiate the position that such a relationship was fostered by the anomalously low solar activity as a result of superposition of the minima of the 22- and 180-year cycles. Sectoral analysis of the solar-tropospheric relationships has shown that the appearance of a blocking anticyclone in the Moscow suburbs, its expansion to Rome and Jungfrau, and subsequent retreat at first from these points, and then from the Moscow suburbs was closely related to solar activity phenomena producing, according to contemporary notions, cyclonic activity, shown by simulation of the Earth’s electric field.”
http://www.springerlink.com/content/km64487726781347/
UPDATE: Thanks to readers, I have a copy of the paper, which I forwarded to Dr. Leif Svalgaard for inspection.In the introduction of the paper there is this:
1. INTRODUCTION
More than 40 years ago, a statistically significant relationship was discovered between the sectoral struc ture of the IMF and the zonal circulation in the atmosphere of the Earth’s Northern Hemisphere; it was suggested that so-called natural synoptic periods to
some degree were determined by the structure of the interplanetary medium (Dimitriev et al., 1978). Recently it was shown that in one important particular case, the anomalously hot weather of summer 2010, a synoptic relationship took place between the sectoral
structure of the solar and interplanetary magnetic field (SMF and IMF), on the one hand, and the surface atmospheric pressure in the suburban Moscow city of Troitsk, on the other (Ivanov and Kharshiladze, 2011).
Svalgaard writes:
The Russian paper “confirms the earlier conclusions on the
reality of a relationship between the sectoral structure of the IOMFS and the Earth’s troposphere (Mansurov et al., 1974; Wilcox, 1979; Wilcox et al., 1974;… Wilcox, J.M., Svalgaard, L., and Scherrer, P.H.,
Seasonal Variation and Magnitude of the Solar Sector Structure Atmospheric VorticityEffect, Nature, 1974, vol. 55, no. 5509, pp. 539–540.
We have long since abandoned the finding as spurious.
So it seems, they are chasing an old discarded theory, and their findings may be nothing more than coincidental – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Shaky.
We know about the solar cycles and effects on climate. But only for a few thousand years at best. But really, expecting to find causation in such a multivariate system as earth’s climate? Hard enough to find correlation in a multivariate chaotic system. Hint: try fractals….
He also has a paper that discusses a possible link between solar activity and hurricane Katrina. Also behind pay wall so I haven’t read it.
“Generation of the Katrine hurricane during the geomagnetic extrastrom at crossing of the heliospheric current sheet: Is it an accidental coincidence or physical essence? K. G. Ivanov”
https://springerlink3.metapress.com/content/4r2p474w0456110n/resource-secured/?target=fulltext.pdf&sid=vctemfjpc1hhxosehd5sd51h&sh=www.springerlink.com
Looks like transcendent rant and way out there theory from where I’m sitting…..
Not buying it.
Although the paper cites an old paper of which I am a coauthor as evidence for pressure effects of solar sector boundaries, the detailed comparisons are just too ad-hoc and unconvincing.
BTW, the Russian paper “confirms the earlier conclusions on the reality of a relationship between the sectoral structure of the IOMFS and the Earth’s troposphere (Mansurov et al., 1974; Wilcox, 1979; Wilcox et al., 1974;…”
Wilcox, J.M., Svalgaard, L., and Scherrer, P.H., Seasonal Variation and Magnitude of the Solar Sector Structure Atmospheric Vorticity Effect, Nature, 1974, vol. 55, no. 5509, pp. 539–540.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Nature/255539a0-Season-VAI.pdf
We have long since abandoned the finding as spurious.
I think the chain of causation from Sun to weather is too convoluted to expect nice easy mappings direct from the boundary sectors to localised pressure differentials and blocking patterns.
There’s little doubt that relatively big and (from Earth’s standpoint) gravitationally and electro-magnetically influential celestial bodies like the Sun and Moon have strong effects on weather patterns though.
Brian Tinsley’s published work on the global electrical circuit affecting cloud type, and Ian Wilson and Paul Vaughan’s work on luni-solar gravitational effects on the Arctic Oscillation via LOD and the Chandler Wobble look promising to far out thinkers like me.
I rather believe in a classic case of omega block.
OF COURSE the West Russian super-heatwave and its termination, and the simultaneous termination of the Pakistan super-flood deluges were solar driven!
We at WeatherAction.com predicted the ongoing super-heatwave, discussed it on Russia Today TV and announced the date that very major solar events would occur and drive jet stream shifts which would end the heatwave and the Pakistan super-rains.
The highly energetic double sunspot which did it and the consequential sudden ionospheric disturbance and jet stream shifts and thunderstorms firstly in St Petersburg appeared on the day(s) we predicted – 15 Aug 2010 – and are reported here:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=9341 VIDEO at Klimate und Energie Konf Nov 2011 Munchen. The video of my presentation includes a dramatic movie of the material from the sunspot associated CME which moved at half the speed of light.
and on
http://www.weatheraction.com/docs/WANews10No31.pdf
We also forecast there would be another but LESSER heatwave in West Russia summer 2011 which was also confirmed. Notwithstanding the importance of their work which, actually looks at real forces rather than CO2 delusionism, I do not know if the Russians’ study would have enabled them to make a similar prediction or if their study was completed soon enough to consider such.
At first sight, and I should read what they say before saying more, their view as stated above would not predict enough major Russian heatwaves as far as I can see and if they venture into forecasting they are unlikely to get the years right since they make no mention of lunar modulating factors.
Thanks
Piers Corbyn
In science, is it better to have correlation without causation, or causation without correlation?
It only takes one blocking high non-occurrence under the same conditions (search analog years) and the hypothesis begins to look like cheese cloth. That this hypothesis was abandoned as spurious speaks well of the original author and co-authors. That the current CO2 hypothesis is clung to with tentacled grip speaks ill of the current crop of AGW authors and co-authors.
Piers Corbyn (@Piers_Corbyn) says:
April 1, 2012 at 1:54 am
The video of my presentation includes a dramatic movie of the material from the sunspot associated CME which moved at half the speed of light.
Either this is an April 1st joke, or you are incompetent on this subject.
Just caught this exchange before I hit the road again today.
Leif I don’t think it is April Fools. One of the problems I have with Mr. Corbyn’s way of doing things is that he often mixes his commentary on science with blatant self promotion done in the style of tabloid reporting.
For example, I find his report http://www.weatheraction.com/docs/WANews10No31.pdf so visually painful to look at that I find it hard to read. It actually hurts my eyes to look at it.
I find it hard to even read his forecasts as it feels like reading the National Enquirer. But like that tabloid, I suppose there’s a market for that sort of stuff.
For the record, CME’s typically reach Earth anywhere from one to five days after the eruption from the Sun’s surface. Earth is about 8 light minutes from the sun, so at half the speed of light (per Mr. Corbyn) we’d see CME’s reaching Earth in about 16 minutes.
If they had that kind of energy, I don’t think we’d be around to write about it. Our computers and power grid would been toasted from that event, and the Carrington event would look like a pipsqueak.
Anthony Watts says:
April 1, 2012 at 8:39 am
I find it hard to even read his forecasts as it feels like reading the National Enquirer. But like that tabloid, I suppose there’s a market for that sort of stuff.
Yes, he is catering for the science illiterate [of which we have our own batch of far out thinkers right here on WUWT].
A question for Leif.
“We have long since abandoned the finding as spurious.”
OK I get that, but how would other authors know this? Is there some sort of flag that gets put on papers that have been found faulty, falsified, or otherwise no longer tenable?
How would somebody, researching in good faith, find this out if they were not privy to this?
Anthony Watts says:
April 1, 2012 at 9:00 am
but how would other authors know this? Is there some sort of flag that gets put on papers that have been found faulty, falsified, or otherwise no longer tenable?
That is a good question. Such papers usually simply die a quiet death. It is rare that they are retracted, denounced, or flagged in some way. A clue is how much they were subsequently broadly cited and the finding being built on by other scientists. For the paper in question: http://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=qFdb2fIAAAAJ&pagesize=100&citation_for_view=qFdb2fIAAAAJ:MXK_kJrjxJIC
The recent uptick is mainly citations by Ivanov.
One of the best set of graduate level classes I ever took (twice, one each for each Masters degree) centered on Research Design and Criticism. I also sat in on a statistics class for no credit. This particular stats class was not a graduate program requirement for me but it required students to do a variety of statistical analysis calculations (IE ANOVAS and tests of statistical significance) with just a simple calculator. The professor was very gracious to let me join in. These types of classes would do all arm chair science enthusiasts and private science practitioners a world of good.
The criticism class was absolutely a fabulous experience for me. We tore apart gold standard research articles with abandon, brutality, and animal cruelty. Though we also had to present solid and defensible reasons for our criticism, it was all kinds of fun.
However, the journal material was, as we say, not exactly like the kind you find in a lab filled with beakers and test tubes. It was research on educational practices and ripe for the picking. I was like a kid in a candy shop.
Short term solar variations are unlikely to directly cause individual weather events but longer term solar variability as from MWP to LIA or LIA to date could well load the dice.
There are many papers from reputable scientists that suggest that solar effects in the upper atmosphere can alter air circulation in the troposphere and a simple comparison of jetstream tracks as reported in ships logs during the LIA shows them to be more equatorward than today. Evidence from the MWP suggests that then the tracks were more like those of today than those observed during the LIA.
So, I don’t go as far as the authors of this paper or Piers Corbyn but similarly I think Leif and Anthony would be unwise to dismiss top down solar effects on the air circulation and the positions of the climate zones completely.
Given the data available I think it is more ‘way out there” to adopt a position of certainty than to keep an open mind.
Leif Svalgaard says:
April 1, 2012 at 9:16 am
Anthony Watts says:
April 1, 2012 at 9:00 am
“but how would other authors know this? Is there some sort of flag that gets put on papers that have been found faulty, falsified, or otherwise no longer tenable?”
That is a good question. Such papers usually simply die a quiet death. It is rare that they are retracted, denounced, or flagged in some way. A clue is how much they were subsequently broadly cited and the finding being built on by other scientists.
Here is the distribution of citations with time for the Vorticity Area Index ‘finding’:
http://www.leif.org/research/VAI-Citations.png
As a contrast, the figure also shows [the bottom two panels] the citation record for results that have stood the test of time.
Anthony, yes Piers Corbyn’s approach is acerbic and a bit gaudy. But I’ll believe that his analysis is all random and irrelevant when any bookmakers start taking bets from him again in comparison to the UK Met Office climatology expectations.
Rich.
Stephen Wilde says:
April 1, 2012 at 9:37 am
Given the data available I think it is more ‘way out there” to adopt a position of certainty than to keep an open mind.
To my reading of what is available it seems that Corbyn [and others of similar persuasions] is the one that has adopted a position of certainty.
Nice try, but solar activity was less than usual in 2010.
Leif Svalgaard says:
April 1, 2012 at 9:16 am
Anthony Watts says:
April 1, 2012 at 9:00 am
“but how would other authors know this? Is there some sort of flag that gets put on papers that have been found faulty, falsified, or otherwise no longer tenable?”
That is a good question. Such papers usually simply die a quiet death. It is rare that they are retracted, denounced, or flagged in some way. A clue is how much they were subsequently broadly cited and the finding being built on by other scientists.
Isn’t this another reason that ‘peer review’ should be abandoned (or, at least, less lauded) as the gold standard authority for basing decisions affecting the whole world? Add this to ‘pal review’ and we non-scientists are left with little faith in either good or bad scientific work.
It’s all very well for scientists within their own narrow specialties to know which research has been debunked or accepted but this does not help when people outside of these specialties are given supposed peer-reviewed conclusions but not the retractions or counter-arguments.
We are placing a lot of trust in scientists, particularly IPCC reviewers, that they have read every possible article ever written about their topic, including the ones that have been discarded by their authors but without this being documented anywhere (other than a small comment in WUWT as given by Leif above).
This seemingly poor management of the peer-review ‘system’ means that some of the items that Leif believes ‘die a quiet death’ through non-reference in other literature may only be on life-support in the critical care ward and could be revived by anyone for their own reasons (cue IPCC reports).
Where is the link to the paper? Zonal winds imply the stratosphere.