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
From Stephen Wilde on October 9, 2013 at 11:26 am:
You cannot have cessations or reversals of trends as a system shifts between states while it responds to an ongoing and perhaps increasing stimulus? Au contraire!
The simplest example is heating water, the temperature of the liquid form will increase, then temperature will plateau as it transitions to vapor, then temperature will increase again.
With chemicals being heated, you can trigger an endothermic reaction that’ll lower the temperature, continue until all of the reactants possible are consumed, then the temperature will rise again.
What is so different with this system, that is actually a very complex interplay of many interconnected systems, that an ongoing and increasing stimulus cannot possibly cause a temporary reversal of an effect?
vukcevik says
Henry are you ready for the torment and tribulation ?
henry says
not now, for the mom
I am going to bed
we will meet again
God bless you all
Of course our Sun is a major player in Earth’s climate/weather. The main solar “products” being TSI (electromagnetic energy), particles (solar wind and CME’s), the solar magnetic field (as discussed in this article), and good ol’ gravity.
It’s just that we know so little about all the interactions, that we cannot always see the connections, let alone predict much.
But, I agree, modern technology allows much better methods of collecting and interpreting the facts. The next 30 years should produce an explosion of new solar theories, if we can ever get our establishment science away from their carbon dioxide fantasies.
Steven Mosher says:
October 9, 2013 at 12:16 pm
hehe I thought you might like this article vuk.
Steven, you are bit of a troublemaker, as a juvenile I use to pull cats tails too.
Btw, in my APS link above, k for both pacific events is about half of that for the north atlantic, on the account of the higher frequency.
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”.
Haven’t you heard? They just changed it the other way.
“On average, the tropics will experience unprecedented climate change 16 years earlier than the rest of the world, starting as early as 2020” in Manokwari, Indonesia, Mora said in a briefing with reporters on Tuesday.
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/uncomfortable-climates-devastate-cities-within-decade-study-says-8C11363468
So much for settled science.
Since we are talking about hectopascals (1 hPa= 0.0145 psi), let me offer another mechanism for atmospheric pressure affects of interplanetary magnetic fields: Oxygen is fairly paramagnetic (attracted to a magnetic field) and the rest of the atmospheric gases are diamagnetic (repulsed by a magnetic field). Since ozone is also diamagnetic, I have offered the explanation of the polar ozone holes on a few other post comments and a means for falsifying the idea, to wit: higher geomagnetic field strengths at the poles (and now the added interplanetary field) would act to push ozone, nitrogen, CO2 and the noble gases away from the poles toward the equator, but attract O2 toward the poles. With almost 80% of the atmosphere’s composition diamagnetic this should create some extra pressure in the temperate/equatorial zones. Also, the ozone “holes” should coincide with reduced nitrogen and noble gases and a higher O2 filling in the “holes”.
Do we have data that shows this variability of the atmos composition over the poles and the equator? If we do, “quod erat demonstrandum” I should think.
I posted this on the WUWT facebook page a week ago. It is along my lines of thought, though I do not agree with it being merely a modulation of existing weather patterns. I would be looking at most of the short term noise of AO/NAO and jet stream variations being solar forced,
This one is definitely worth a read too:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19342585
Oh, great! First they tell us that man-made CO2 affects our climate. Now they want to tell us that the Sun has some effect. What nonsense will they come up with next?
It’s the Gods, folks. Thor, Aeolus, Indra, Enlil, Tāwhirimātea, Lei Gong, Mamaragan, Tlaloc, Taranis, Raijin, and all the others. Treat them with respect and things will work out.
“REPLY: Why should he? He hasn’t revealed any details of how he supposedly uses solar information to make those Jeane Dixon style never falsifiable forecasts he hypes. – Anthony”
He has actually explained his temperature forecast method, at least for the UK. He bases it on the beat of 6 double solar cycles and 7 lunar cycles, which should be ~133yrs, but for some reason he uses 132yrs back, and applies roughly weekly CET temperature as a single analogue. That’s largely it. There’s nothing empirical about it.
New paper finds another amplification mechanism by which the Sun controls climate:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/new-paper-finds-another-amplification.html
I am waiting for The Comment, from the Maestro of Solar/Lunar/Earth Magnetic Flux effects ….. Piers Corbyn, of Weatheraction, UK. Surely this vindicates his hypotheses and his SLAT techniques ?
so, I tended to diss the claime re HAARP and weather influence.
but
what effect would creating plasma balls and bouncing waves round the ionosphere have?
maybe none but maybe they do have some effects?
like geo engineering, large scale , things might better left alone I suspect.
We seem to all accept the fact that the Sun is the primary driver of WEATHER. For example, it is (generally) warmer in the daytime than at night, due to the sun heating the daylight portion of the planet. It is (generally) warmer in Summer than it is in Winter, due to the angle of the sun being able to more effectively heat the Summer portion of the Earth compared to the Winter portion of the Earth (yes, I know, it is the Earth’s axis which causes the angular differential, not the sun, but you get what I mean). It is (generally) warmer at the equator than it is at the poles, again due to that angular thing.
Pretty much everyone knows and accepts that on a daily basis, the sun (combined with the Earth water cycle) controls (in close approximation) 100% of our weather here on earth.
Therefore, is seems perfectly reasonable to postulate that the Sun (combined with the Earth water cycle, which is solar-driven) would control something on the order of 100% of the Earth’s CLIMATE as well, since climate is really only an aggregation of weather integrated temporally and spatially.
henry@peterb
you are so right of course
what do you think of my post,
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
Salvatore Del Prete says:
October 9, 2013 at 11:27 am
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.
_______________________________
Greetings Señor Del Prete,
In certain camps, the date of future total Arctic ice melt keeps advancing, as predicted deadlines come and go. Their hopes remain for future vindication and so, apparently do yours (albeit in different regard,) in spite of the lack of historical supporting data. Perhaps my viewpoint is wrong that correlative curve- fitting is less than definitive.
Don’t invest in the arctic
It will all freeze up there again in the next few decaded
vukcevic says:
October 9, 2013 at 1:17 pm
———————————–
I always felt a connection with your ideas and your approach to a Sun/Earth connection. Remember when WUWT allowed for voting up of comments, earlier this year? I was surprised when my comment regarding a possible link between solar magnetic influences and the jet stream ended up with 7 votes in about ten minutes. The votes were a clear indication that others were thinking similar thoughts. I can not do the math, yet as my mind sifts information it does at times point in the right direction to connect the dots.
You have good manners in the way that you take critiques. I can understand why Dr Svalgaard holds to the strict position of his stance. As one of the current patriarchs of solar studies, he stands guard against frivolous speculation and unsubstantiated claims. That is necessary in maintaining proper order and discipline in the search for ‘the Truth of the matter’.
LS …..thinks he knows it all
He does not realize that the TRUTH is bigger than he thinks….
Maybe yes, and maybe no as to what he thinks regarding Truth. His position on the science involved though is clearly that of the established position, which he will firmly defend until there is a firm reason for altering that position. That is what makes sense to me about Dr Svalgaard,s stance. I don’t get the impression from him that his entire viewpoint is written in stone, but he is not going to join in with the new wave of thought that you and others are bringing forth. I would bet that he wishes success for you or Vuk in your endeavors.
Alan Robertson says:
October 10, 2013 at 10:12 am
Greetings Señor Del Prete,
______________________
Please pardon my error, Signore Del Prete
@ozspeaksup
>so, I tended to diss the claime re HAARP and weather influence. but what effect would creating plasma balls and bouncing waves round the ionosphere have? maybe none but maybe they do have some effects? like geo engineering, large scale , things might better left alone I suspect.
I thought HAARP was a form of over-the-horizon radar. If you shake the ionosphere isn’t it true that you can identify the location of flying metal objects by inducing a current in them? Then they sing like a canary.
If so the only reason to shut it down would be that there is a better replacement. If it was a weather changing machine it would activate the same mechanism described in the paper. With a phased array you could direct the effect to a particular location though to an outsider it would appear to be moving energy everywhere ‘randomly’. It is hard to believe that it would work.
@HenryP
I do like your post. I always thought that fitting sine-like curves to a non-linear coupled chaotic (but somewhat cyclical) system made a heck of a lot more sense than trying to fit straight lines to such a system.
Weather forecasts, regardless of whether they are 10 days out or 50 years out can generally be made by analyzing old patterns, recognizing when a similar pattern is happening again, and projecting forward. The key is being able to RECOGNIZE when an old pattern is getting ready to repeat itself, which is precisely what you appear to be tying to do.
Our friend Mr. Bastardi is quite the master of looking at old patterns and forecasting when they will repeat themselves, and he seems to do a pretty fair job of it, so it seems to be one of the few ways to do forecasting of such a complex system.
The great thing about science is that it can be said to be the “search for truth”… However, if you think you actually FOUND the truth, you aren’t doing science anymore, you are doing religion. That’s the whole problem with the CAGW crowd, they actually think that they FOUND the truth, so they are doing religion now.
@peterb
Thx, I do appreciate ur comments
In my case
There is always a beginning and end to an investigation. I am not saying that I found “TRUTH”
That would be the same as me claiming to be God. I am saying – I am satisfied I figured out enough. I don’t need to know more. I am happy with my big truck and dogs who go with me. I don’t feel guilty anymore abt using more COtwo than others. God is good.
No….peeled back like onion, exposing sometimes inner magnetosphere…
Affecting pressures and wind flows..no.
Yes it does..
Crispin in Waterloo but really in Beijing says:
October 10, 2013 at 11:15 am
@ozspeaksup
>so, I tended to diss the claime re HAARP and weather influence. but what effect would creating plasma balls and bouncing waves round the ionosphere have? maybe none but maybe they do have some effects? like geo engineering, large scale , things might better left alone I suspect.
I thought HAARP was a form of over-the-horizon radar. If you shake the ionosphere isn’t it true that you can identify the location of flying metal objects by inducing a current in them? Then they sing like a canary.
If so the only reason to shut it down would be that there is a better replacement. If it was a weather changing machine it would activate the same mechanism described in the paper. With a phased array you could direct the effect to a particular location though to an outsider it would appear to be moving energy everywhere ‘randomly’. It is hard to believe that it would work.
__________________________
I tried in vain a few weeks ago to enlighten one of my tin foil hat- wearing friends as to how much power would be needed for HAARP to create any noticeable weather effect at all, even locally. My friend argued that the Oklahoma tornadoes were a result of HAARP, at a great distance. When told that HAARP is closed, she concluded that “they” have moved it to a secret location.
By the way Crispin, you sure do roam around a lot… last week you were in Java. Hope you listened to some good gamelan music.
PeterB in Indianapolis says:
October 10, 2013 at 11:55 am
The great thing about science is that it can be said to be the “search for truth”…
—————————————————————————————————–
The ‘search for truth’ is a life long quest. ‘Searching for greater understanding’ is a main component of that quest.
Several weeks, I followed a link that led to one of the co2 believer science sites, Nucitelli,s maybe. I read through all of the comments to get a better impression of their thoughts. They were into a reasonable science based discussion, except that they were all in agreement with one another throughout the entire thread. For the most part they were puzzling over why nature was not on their side, and looking for ways to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that co2 was the main climate culprit. After reading about 1/3rd of the comments, I was struck by the fact that every scientific based comment was bound to the ‘belief’ that co2 was primary to understanding climate interactions, no matter which earth dynamic was bought into the discussion. Somehow it reminded me of ‘Waiting for Godot’.
PeterB in Indianapolis says:October 10, 2013 at 11:55 am
HenryP says:October 10, 2013 at 12:20 pm
About the truth:
“…
That would be a good world, free and out-doors.
But the vast hungry spirit of the time
Cries to his chosen that there is nothing good
Except discovery, experiment and experience and discovery: To look
truth in the eyes,
To strip truth naked, let our dogs do our living for us
But man discover.
It is a fine ambition,
But the wrong tools. Science and mathematics
Run parallel to reality, they symbolize it, they squint at it,
They never touch it: consider what an explosion
Would rock the bones of men into little white fragments and unsky
the world
If any mind for a moment touch truth.”
excerpted from -Robinson Jeffers “The Silent Shepherds”
Funny how Mosher and Svalgaard are busy commenting on trivial posts but much more circumspect on serious work… BTW the work described here does not need to establish “climate relations”. 4 years of data is plenty since they talk about processes that could explain observed synoptical variations that many are too happy to call the work of “chaos”. And since climate is the sum of weathers, finding the process that controls weather will lead to climate understanding.