From the “science is settled” department comes this new paper that points out a correlation between the Interplanetary Magnetic Field (IMF) and polar jet streams, which drive weather events on Earth. This new paper shows that the effects extend even further towards the Equator than before, meaning it will affect weather experienced by a greater portion of Earth’s human population.
Given that the solar magnetic dynamo has been in a slump as of late, and we’ve experienced a very low U.S. tornado season, one wonders if the low tornado numbers are partially related to lack of perturbations induced in the jet stream, which guide storm tracks and fronts.
The effect may also extend to the 2013 Northern Hemisphere hurricane season, which has also been a bust, despite early predictions.
So far the 2013 Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) count for the Northern Hemisphere is 217, about half of what it normally is for this date at 432. Source: WeatherBell, Dr. Ryan Maue
The paper, in Environmental Research Letters is:
==================================
The interplanetary magnetic field influences mid-latitude surface atmospheric pressure
M M Lam, G Chisham and M P Freeman
Abstract
The existence of a meteorological response in the polar regions to fluctuations in the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) component By is well established. More controversially, there is evidence to suggest that this Sun–weather coupling occurs via the global atmospheric electric circuit. Consequently, it has been assumed that the effect is maximized at high latitudes and is negligible at low and mid-latitudes, because the perturbation by the IMF is concentrated in the polar regions.
We demonstrate a previously unrecognized influence of the IMF By on mid-latitude surface pressure. The difference between the mean surface pressures during times of high positive and high negative IMF By possesses a statistically significant mid-latitude wave structure similar to atmospheric Rossby waves.
Our results show that a mechanism that is known to produce atmospheric responses to the IMF in the polar regions is also able to modulate pre-existing weather patterns at mid-latitudes.
We suggest the mechanism for this from conventional meteorology. The amplitude of the effect is comparable to typical initial analysis uncertainties in ensemble numerical weather prediction. Thus, a relatively localized small-amplitude solar influence on the upper atmosphere could have an important effect, via the nonlinear evolution of atmospheric dynamics, on critical atmospheric processes.
============================================================
Figure 1 shows the extent:
In the discussion section they write:
To explain the observed correlation of IMF By with surface pressure we propose that the mid-latitude surface pressure is influenced by IMF By via a two-stage process comprising: (i) a change in the polar surface pressure involving the global atmospheric electric circuit [5, 6], and (ii) a resulting change in the mid-latitude surface pressure via conventional meteorology. The first of these two processes, concerning the influence of IMF By fluctuations on the polar surface pressure remains under-explored and controversial [17, 18]. However, our analysis of the surface pressure anomaly field
provides new evidence supporting a direct relationship with the ionospheric electric potential.
Figure 3 is a schematic representing this two-stage process: in the Northern Hemisphere, as IMF By switches from dawnward to duskward, the potential difference between the ionosphere and the Earth’s surface, V, and the sea-level pressure p, decrease in the northern polar region. The direct effect on sea-level pressure in the polar regions (figures S3 and S4, available at stacks.iop.org/ERL/8/045001/mmedia), along with the lack of effect on pressure at low latitudes, results in a change in the latitudinal sea-level pressure gradient in mid-latitude regions (figure S5, available at stacks.iop.org/ERL/8/045001/mmedia) associated with an increase in the mean zonal wind U at mid-latitudes. Generalizing the original theory of Rossby waves [10] to the case of periodic variations in both longitude and latitude [19], we obtain U = β/(k2 + l2) where k and l are the wavenumbers in the longitudinal and latitudinal directions, respectively. For a fixed value of k (and hence m), an increase in U leads to a decrease in l and an increase in meridional wavelength Lθ. Thus variations in IMF By modify the quasi-stationary Rossby wavenumber (k,l), accounting for the Rossby-wave-like form of
. The variations in V,p,U,l and Lθ are reversed in the Southern Hemisphere. More details are in section 2 of the supplementary data (available at stacks.iop.org/ERL/8/045001/mmedia).
Figure 3. Our hypothesis is that the mid-latitude surface pressure is influenced by IMF By via a two-stage process. (i) As IMF By changes from dawnward to duskward, the electric potential difference between the ionosphere and the Earth’s surface, V, and the sea-level pressure p, decrease in the northern polar region; (ii) the mean zonal wind U at mid-latitudes increases resulting in an increase in the meridional wavelength (for simplicity labelled L in this figure; in text referred to as Lθ) of the stationary Rossby wave with an integer number of azimuthal waves m (at co-latitude θ and latitude λ = 90° − θ). The variations in V,p,U and L are reversed in the Southern Hemisphere.
They write in the conclusion section of the paper:
Previously, proposals to link solar wind variations to significant weather or climate variability have been dismissed on the grounds that the magnitude of the energy change in the atmosphere associated with the solar wind variability is far too small to impact the Earth’s system. However, this argument neglects the importance of nonlinear atmospheric dynamics [20]. The amplitudes of the IMF-related changes in atmospheric pressure gradient are comparable with the initial uncertainties in the corresponding zonal wind used in ensemble numerical weather prediction (NWP) [21] of ~1 m s−1. Such uncertainties are known to be important to subsequent atmospheric evolution and forecasting [22]. Consequently, we have shown that a relatively localized and small-amplitude solar influence on the upper polar atmosphere could have an important effect, via the nonlinear evolution of atmospheric dynamics on critical processes such as European climate and the breakup of Arctic sea ice [23].
In particular, it affects the structure of the Rossby wavefield, which is key in determining the trajectory of storm tracks [24]. The configuration of the North Atlantic jet stream is particularly susceptible to changes in forcing [25]. In turn, so are the location and the timing of blocking events in this region, in which vortices are shed from the jet stream leading to prolonged periods of low or of high pressure [26]. It has also been proposed that the low-frequency variability of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) arises as a result of variations in the occurrence of upper-level Rossby wavebreaking events over the North Atlantic [27]. The NAO itself is key to climate variability over the Atlantic–European sector stretching from the east coast of the United States to Siberia, and the Arctic to the subtropical Atlantic [28, 25].
Our results may therefore provide part of the explanation for previously observed correlations between Eurasian winter temperatures and solar variability [29, 30], and for the ‘Wilcox effect’ where reductions in the areas of high vorticity in winter storms are seen at times of solar wind heliospheric current sheet crossings [31] (which are characterized by sharp changes between steady, opposite IMF By states).
To me this is an important discovery, particularly since it manifests itself most strongly at the poles, and the opinion of mainstream climate science is that global warming will show up at the poles more strongly via “polar amplification”.
Full paper in open access here: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/4/045001/article
h/t to Jo Nova
I’ve just realised that if you count your life in solar cycles I’ve only got one and a half left, if I’m lucky.
Silver Ralph says:
October 9, 2013 at 9:41 am
Is this not the pet theory of one of WUWT’s resident ‘alternative scientists’?? I seem to have read all this before.
Not certain but would that be me?
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/new-climate-model/
There is currently a whole rash of papers and blog comments circling around the issues I have been drawing attention to since 2007/08
Stephen Wilde says:
October 9, 2013 at 8:00 am
>i>Time to reopen such matters with the benefit of modern sensors.
The sensors [for By and pressure] have not changed, neither has people’s gullibility.
PeterB in Indianapolis says:
October 9, 2013 at 9:10 am
what you DO think might actually have an influence on the weather/climate here on Earth. Is it the Sun? If not, then is it CO2? If not, then what do YOU suppose it to be and WHY?
In my opinion there has nor been compelling evidence for a Sun/Weather/Climate connection [beyond the trivial 0.1 C effect due to TSI]. I have seen hundreds of correlations come and go [including some of mine]. Any complex system has internal, natural fluctuations, the climate is no exception.
Before we discuss mechanisms, the effect has to be demonstrated first, and that has not been done to my satisfaction. Perhaps the bar for what will accept is higher than most peoples, but so be it.
Stephen Wilde says
My view is that it is a matter of upper air chemistry involving ozone and the magnetic field variation would only affect ozone reactions involving charged particles which are directed in along the magnetic field lines. I do not know what proportion of the ozone response to solar variations can be put down to charged particles. I would have thought that wavelength changes would be the more substantial contributor which would not be affected by the magnetic field.
Henry says
My view as well, but don’t forget about the peroxides and the nitrogen oxides, who like ozone do exactly the same thing if there is more of it…deflect more (very) SW
Rafellis says
due to the European winter jetstream being much further south than usual (and not waving)
Farmers beware….
Henry says
All true and projected from my earlier measurements from the drop of maxima
I would be interested to hear your opinion on my final report on this?
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
Leif said:
“The sensors [for By and pressure] have not changed”
We now have sensors in the oceans and the ability to better monitor temperature changes at different levels in the atmosphere.
We can better monitor changes in the particles and wavelengths from the sun.
There is increasing realisation that my oft stated comments about shifting jets and climate zones coupled with atmospheric volume changes, variations in atmospheric heights between equator and poles and changes in the speed of net global convection are all capable of adjusting the rate of energy throughput so as to maintain long term balance at ToA whatever internal system variations (including atmospheric composition) do to try and destabilise it.
I think you are stuck in an out of date mode of thought.
Each time a global warming appologist goes looking for an excuse for missing warmth they seem to find some temporary natural effect at least strong enough to hide the warming. One would think that after looking at the collection of natural effects capable of hiding man-made effects, they might wonder whether the man made effects are important enough to appologise for.
…we propose that the mid-latitude surface pressure is influenced by IMF By via a two-stage process comprising: (i) a change in the polar surface pressure involving the global atmospheric electric circuit…
At this point my brain sets off the quackery alarm. Localized static electric charges, sure. The rarefied plasma layers of the ionosphere, as hinted by “ion” in the name, sure.
But, while the Sun may cause electric current circulation patterns in the ionosphere, that’s on the sunward side. “Global” sounds like it’s an ongoing all-surrounding phenomenon instead of a large but localized effect.
And come on, that’s thin atmosphere up there, must be small currents. How much real energy is circulating? Is there enough in a year to power New York City for a day? An hour? How much of a “global” effect can that yield?
The conclusions that are being reached from different approaches of tackeling the solar/climate relatioships from the IMF B y component , to the ACI/LOD correlations, to reduced EUV light during prolonged solar minimum periods, plus reconstructions of atmospheric likely circulations during previous prolonged solar minimum periods(especially N.H.) are that the atmosphere’s response is to become more meridional , this results in more more clouds, precipitation and snow cover, and cooler temperatures.
Every approach keeps coming up with the conclusion that the atmospheric response to prolonged solar minimum periods or even run of the mill quiet periods, is to become more meridional , which will impact the globe(especially N.H.) with cooling.
The question one must ask is if the sun is the main driver of the atmosphere and the oceans it stands to reason if a change takes place to the main driver, it stands to reason the vary items that it drives are going to offer a response.
Hmmm. Is this not the mechanism Piers Corbyn claims he uses to make his forecasts?
@Leif Svlagaard
That was an excellent response to a good question. Is there not a concern though, that by being as dismissive of some theories as you are you might miss the possibility that there is a connection worth investigating?
I often think that with a system as complex as the climate, there won’t be one single factor that dominates, and if it does it will only do so briefly before a new effect comes into play, as a response to the original influence or not. Therefore, looking for tight correlations may well be a futile and unlikely. If it is an ensemble of interconnecting factors, then they may all need to be investigated before being ruled out. I just wonder if you rule things out prematurely.
If you lowered the bar for us briefly, would there be some theories that might yet bear fruit in terms of extending our knowledge on what solar effects other than TSI might have a role to play in our climate?
Leif is not going along with al the new solar/climate connection reseach. That is his choice ,so be it.
Salvatore del Prete says
Leif is not going along with al the new solar/climate connection reseach. That is his choice ,so be it.
sic
Henry says
how would you know what Leif is thinking
unless you are him?
Please learn how to spell your name
lsvalgaard says:
October 9, 2013 at 7:55 am
Climate relations based on 4 years of data 1999-2002 are a bit too thin for my taste. Full Disclosure: I was one of the co-authors of the paper announcing the Wilcox-effect: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/180/4082/185.short
IMHO that effect is spurious, although it looked good at the time [1973]..
What might have been found is the source of Lorenz strange attractor – butterfly effect. Lorenz’s entire problem was that there was no correlation between input and output in his nonlinear systems.
Henry that is so ridiculous. Come on.
Salvatore said:
“Every approach keeps coming up with the conclusion that the atmospheric response to prolonged solar minimum periods or even run of the mill quiet periods, is to become more meridional ,”
That appears to be absolutely right.
Everyone and his dog is now putting forward proposals for mechanisms that lead to more meridional jets when the globe is cooling and more zonal when it is warming.
The fact is that meridionality reduces energy into the oceans and zonality allows more energy into the oceans.
That no longer appears to be in dispute outside the AGW circle of natural climate change denial.
see here:
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/weather-is-the-key-after-all/
June 18, 2008
“My conclusion is that a careful observation of weather patterns over the entire globe and, in particular, ascertaining whether there is a net average surface movement of air towards the poles or towards the equator should reveal whether there is an overall global warming or cooling trend at any particular time.”
and:
“all one needs to do is consider the movement of the jet streams in conjunction with the main high pressure systems.
If jet streams, on average, are further south then the high pressure systems to the north of them predominate and the globe is cooling. If, on average, they are further north then high pressure to the south of them predominates and the globe is warming”.
The chase is now on to narrow down cause and effect.
It cannot be anything to do with human emissions because the system went into reverse around 2000 despite increasing emissions.
Time will clear up these matters, as this prolonged solar minimum has a very long way to go, and we will find out the climate response and why and what it responded to due to the prolonged solar minimum, which should last till 2040 or so.
In the meantime I will sit and wait and keep track of all the solar/climate data and see where it takes us.
Exactly Stephen.
I think the low ACE number is due to the contraction of the atmosphere during times of low solar output/low solar wind. If the overall height of the atmosphere “compresses” from 400 miles deep to 280 miles deep when the solar wind speeds are low (as they have been for several years now) then heat energy is more effectively radiated away from the calm, compressed atmosphere. This, in turn, decreases the effectiveness of hot towers in tropical cyclone formation. This is my own theory, based on observation of cyclone behavior over the last few years, and isn’t based on any true science at all. Call it a hunch…
Note that storms lately have not been exploding at T-Max (night time), and instead are responding during T-Min conditions (daytime), which indicates the sun’s heat energy can drive the hot towers during the daytime, but at night they’re shedding their energy too fast, collapsing too soon, with cooler outflows which disrupt the cyclone cores. I keep seeing tropical storm after storm doing this on visible satellite, even when the forecasters and models say there’s a “good chance of intensification”.
Molecules of air and water vapor closer together must be capable of radiating heat more effectively. It’s quite simple.
Leif,
Thank you for that answer and – while I appreciate that there has been no evidence of a “grand solar maximum” to explain the recent warming – do you also dismiss the Dalton and Maunder minima links to cold temperatures? These are the ones I consider to be the most indicative of a solar link to temperature variation and which adds weight in my mind to the correlation between sunspot cycle and temperatures.
Thanks again, your input is appreciated by many here and I hope you never tire of our responses.
Not sure I buy it. There were plenty of hurricanes in North Carolina during the Dalton Minimum.
Stephen Wilde says:
October 9, 2013 at 10:46 am
We now have sensors in the oceans and the ability to better monitor temperature changes at different levels in the atmosphere.
We can better monitor changes in the particles and wavelengths from the sun.
The paper is about By and pressure and the sensors for those have not changed.
Rob Potter says:
October 9, 2013 at 11:48 am
do you also dismiss the Dalton and Maunder minima links to cold temperatures?
I do not ‘dismiss’ anything [apart from the usual pseudo-science that also lives on these pages]. My point is that it has been shown that those minima are related to temperature: There are other minima that do not have a corresponding temperature response, and there are other processes that produce low temperatures, e.g. volcanoes [Tambora is a good example].
These guys a bit late on the scene, and they got it somwhat wrong. It is not the Interplanetary Magnetic Field (IMF) on its own, atmospheric pressure is correlated to the interaction of solar and the Earth’s magnetic field as I show here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSO-Rap.htm
in an article published just over a year ago.
I should know, since I’ve been ranting about it on the WUWT (as Steven Mosher observed for some years ago).
But, hey it is all nonsense, ask Dr. S.
rem: correlation is not causation.
These guys have to show where the required energy comes from, the IMF is so week that I rather trust the proverbial butterfly’s flapping wings to start an Atlantic hurricane.
Now, if you really whish to know you need follow ‘vukcevic hypothesis’ evolution; the energy comes from the ocean currents continuously shaken by global tectonics:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/APS.htm
It just happens that geo-tectonics is strongly correlated to the solar activity
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-NAP.htm
rem: correlation is not causation.
Been there , done that, time to move on.
🙂
vukcevic says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/09/a-link-between-the-solar-magnetic-field-and-weather-patterns-on-earth-may-explain-our-lower-than-normal-severe-weather-in-2013/#comment-
henry says
you never told me if you agree with my final report?
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
hehe I thought you might like this article vuk.
Ah, a mechanism! The engineer in me just loves a mechanism thesis because I sure am sick to death of the statistical drivel coming out of the warmists models and mouths thus far.
HenryP @ur momisugly vukcevic
you never told me if you agree with my final report?
Henry, sometimes a man has to traverse the science’s Desert of Sinai in company of himself and himself alone to reach clarity of the contemplation.
Henry are you ready for the torment and tribulation ?