Story submitted by Cornelis de Jager
(past president ICSU;past pres. COSPAR)
In a recent publication entitled Terrestrial ground temperature variation in relation to solar magnetic variability, including the present Schwabe cycle, Cornelis (Kees) de Jager and Hans Nieuwenhuijzen, from the Space Research Organisation of the Netherlands have analysed the dependence of the global earth temperature on the polar as well as the equatorial magnetic fields. The new aspect in this research is that all earlier investigations in this field only sought for the dependence of the terrestrial ground temperature on the number of sunspots, which is a “proxy” for the equatorial magnetic fields of the sun. But the sun has two big magnetic areas, the equatorial and the polar one. In this research both are included.
In their analysis the Utrecht scientists restricted to the relatively long-term variation of both fields as well as the temperature, such in order to exclude short-term phenomena such as temperature variations due to volcanoes or processes like El-Nino.
By including the two magnetic field areas in their analysis it could be shown that during the major part of the four centuries investigated, i.e. the period 1610 till around 1900 – 1950 , the average terrestrial ground temperatures depend solely on solar magnetic field variations. After 1900 there is an increasing excess in the temperature which is ascribed to anthropogenic activity. After the impressive Grand Maximum of the 20thb century the sun went through an exceptional, not before observed phase transition that lasted relatively long, i.e. from about 2005 till 2010.
Usually, the transitions between solar variability phases takes no more than one to two years. During that transition period and after that, solar activity was exceptionally low. The consequent small contribution to the terrestrial temperatures is the cause for the standstill in the rise of temperature observed since the middle of the 20th century.
The above can be illustrated in figure 1, the diagram shows three curves. The middle one is the average terrestrial ground temperature (dots) through which a smoothed average curve is drawn .(The LOWESS technique is used for smoothing). The upper line shows the solar contribution and the bottom curve is the difference between the two. It shows a nearly flat variation which demonstrates that the long-term component of terrestrial temperatures is solely due to the variation of the sun’s magnetic fields. The average “zero-line” show a very slow , yet unexplained, increase over the centuries.
The paper is published in Natural Science vol. 5, pp. 1112- 1120, 2013 (open access). It can also be consulted at http://www.cdejager.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/2013-CdeJ-HN-Sun-climate-NS-5-1112.pdf
Related articles
- A link between the solar magnetic field and weather patterns on Earth may explain our lower than normal severe weather in 2013 (wattsupwiththat.com)
- Commentary on the Article about the Interplanetary Magnetic Field influences (wattsupwiththat.com)
lsvalgaard says:
November 2, 2013 at 1:37 pm
Carla says:
November 2, 2013 at 1:27 pm
Should we add “counter-streaming solar wind suprathermal electrons,” to the “electron halo,” which is very much apart of the solar corona. Gee. Dr, S., these guys can paddle upstream.
ee suprathermal sounds hot to me.
No, because there is no electron halo around the sun. Energetic particles can always travel upstream, For example ordinary cosmic rays.
—
In the abstract from: ELECTRON HALO AND STRAHL FORMATION IN THE SOLAR WIND BY RESONANT INTERACTION WITH WHISTLER WAVES
http://sprg.ssl.berkeley.edu/adminstuff/webpubs/2005_aj_540.pdf
C. Vocks,1 C. Salem, and R. P. Lin
“At higher energies above 2 keV, a superhalo can even be observed.”
Carla says:
November 2, 2013 at 2:22 pm
“At higher energies above 2 keV, a superhalo can even be observed.”
So?
Carla says:
November 2, 2013 at 2:22 pm
“At higher energies above 2 keV, a superhalo can even be observed.”
They are talking about the distribution of velocities, not about a distribution in space:
“Observations of solar wind electron distribution functions (VDFs) reveal considerable deviations from a simple Maxwellian VDF. A thermal core and a suprathermal halo and antisunward, magnetic field–aligned beam, or ‘‘strahl,’’ can be distinguished. At higher energies above 2 keV, a superhalo can even be observed.”
Make it simple they sometimes say,
If you were outward halfway between A Centuri and the sun and were to look back with your special telescope you would see an ever increasing intensity of light as you near the disk, which may be called halo.
Said halo would include interactions stated in above articles and include an Electron population contained therein.
What’s the deal, the solar corona cannot be loosely defined by graduating halo densitys.
Carla says:
November 2, 2013 at 2:55 pm
Make it simple they sometimes say
You have dumbed it down to the point where it makes no sense to me. Perhaps I’m not dumb enough…
Carla says:
November 2, 2013 at 2:55 pm
which may be called halo
The ‘halo’ your various links are talking about is not a halo is space on in the sky and one you can see. It is a halo in the distribution of velocities. I’ll try to explain: When you have a lot of interacting particles they will have a spread in velocities. They collide with each other or deflect each other so even if they have an average speed [which determines the temperature] some particles will move a bit faster than average, so a bit slower. In thermal equilibrium the spread will look approximately like a bell-shaped curve. In the corona we actually observe more particles move faster and also some that move slower than expected from the bell-curve. These particles are called the ‘halo’ particles, telling us that the lot is not in thermal equilibrium. That is what is meant by ‘halo’. The observed spread is found to be skinnier than the bell-curve. That is called the ‘strahl’, meaning ‘ray’ in German. So instead of a nice bell-curve we observe a strahl and a halo when we plot the observed speeds. But that is in the distribution, not in their spatial distribution which is what we ordinary would call a halo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_(religious_iconography)
The two ‘halos’ have nothing to do with each other.
The following figure puts in to perspective, the velocity distribution, in heliocentric distance 0.3 to 2 AU,
the core, halo and strahl of electron density. I would think that the solar gravitational focusing effect on interstellar stuff, might also be a part of the population out that far..
Suprathermal Particle Populations in the Solar Wind and
Corona, Exploring the Solar Wind
http://cdn.intechweb.org/pdfs/32539.pdf
M. Lazar, R. Schlickeiser and S. Poedts (2012).
pg. 10
Fig. 5. Radial variations of the relative number density for the core (full line), halo (dashed
line), and strahl (dotted line) populations, respectively,..During the solar wind transport an important fraction of the strahl electrons may be diffused and transferred to the halo population
(after Maksimovic et al.(2005)).
Carla says:
November 2, 2013 at 5:03 pm
The following figure puts in to perspective
You are completely missing the boat here. What is important is what fraction of the solar wind the halo particles make up. Go search for that. You’ll find that the fraction is very small and that therefore the halo, strahl, and core thingies are completely negligible. Now, they are good tracers of some solar wind properties, but that is a different matter. So, homework for this weekend is the find out what that fraction is. The non-thermal particles compared to the thermal [bulk] particles.
Leif: Any word from the South American Parana River??(sp?) The one alleged to track sun spot numbers closely. I would be interested to know if it’s numbers match the Sun’s dormancy?
johnnythelowery says:
November 2, 2013 at 6:03 pm
Any word from the South American Parana River??
Dunno. Why don’t you try to find out. GIYF.
HenryP says:
November 2, 2013 at 11:14 am
“the graph on the drop of maximum temperatures (which nobody but me is looking at)
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
predicts that over the period 1927-2016 the SSN line must be straight”
This starts to be amusing.
If it will be straight then what? What it would mean? (My bet is that the line will absolutely definitely not be straight in 2016 – but even if it did, it wouldn’t seem to me having any meaning whatsoever.)
“here is the latest on that:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1927/to:2014/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1927/to:2014/trend
it seems to me the line is pretty straight. Perhaps by 2016 it will be straight.
Do you see that my theory (i.e. my results) works?”
The SIDC SSN data at WFT are incorrect due to so called Waldmeier discontinuity (Dr. Svalgaard many times emphasized this here!). With the corrected SSN data your trendline will look like this.
– It pretty doesn’t seem that it would like to level in 2016, and I actually calculated for you, that you would need like SSN 150+ from now on until the end of 2016 for the line to make it to your longed-for flatline. (Future SSN simulation – how SSN would need to look -for you to get the 1927-2017.0 flat trend you can find here).
So what theory? I don’t see any theory, even less a working theory. I see only a completely arbitrary period trendline through a quasiperiodic signal, moreover made using incorrect SSN record, made by somebody likely completely confused, visibly not understanding basics of basics of statistics.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=10&cad=rja&ved=0CGMQFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tandfonline.com%2Fdoi%2Ffull%2F10.1080%2F15715124.2013.826234&ei=yaR1UvWnEKrg2wWn2YHQAw&usg=AFQjCNF6jAGwNP4h_n5eP4KPv2yX3psACA
It’s paywalled but it’s Sept. 2013 and it’s Mr. Guerro. Anyone out there have a subscription to the…..International Journal of River Basin Management????
It’s title is: Parana River Morphodynamics in the age of Climate Change
Tumi says
So what theory? I don’t see any theory, even less a working theory.
henry@Tumi
A careful study of maximum temperatures of the recent temperature records reveals that Earth is most likely on an 88 year A-C wave, the so-called Gleissberg solar/weather cycle, with ca. 44 years of warming followed by 44 years of cooling.
Not only my results show this, here:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
but those of others as well, e.g.
1) http://www.nonlin-processes-geophys.net/17/585/2010/npg-17-585-2010.html
2) Persistence of the Gleissberg 88-year solar cycle over the last ˜12,000 years: Evidence from cosmogenic isotopes
Peristykh, Alexei N.; Damon, Paul E.
Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), Volume 108, Issue A1, pp. SSH 1-1, CiteID 1003, DOI 10.1029/2002JA009390
Among other longer-than-22-year periods in Fourier spectra of various solar-terrestrial records, the 88-year cycle is unique, because it can be directly linked to the cyclic activity of sunspot formation. Variations of amplitude as well as of period of the Schwabe 11-year cycle of sunspot activity have actually been known for a long time and a ca. 80-year cycle was detected in those variations. Manifestations of such secular periodic processes were reported in a broad variety of solar, solar-terrestrial, and terrestrial climatic phenomena. Confirmation of the existence of the Gleissberg cycle in long solar-terrestrial records as well as the question of its stability is of great significance for solar dynamo theories. For that perspective, we examined the longest detailed cosmogenic isotope record—INTCAL98 calibration record of atmospheric 14C abundance. The most detailed precisely dated part of the record extends back to ˜11,854 years B.P. During this whole period, the Gleissberg cycle in 14C concentration has a period of 87.8 years and an average amplitude of ˜1‰ (in Δ14C units). Spectral analysis indicates in frequency domain by sidebands of the combination tones at periods of ≈91.5 ± 0.1 and ≈84.6 ± 0.1 years that the amplitude of the Gleissberg cycle appears to be modulated by other long-term quasiperiodic process of timescale ˜2000 years. This is confirmed directly in time domain by bandpass filtering and time-frequency analysis of the record. Also, there is additional evidence in the frequency domain for the modulation of the Gleissberg cycle by other millennial scale processes.
end quote
so, Tumi, to put you in the picture:
The De Vries/Suess and Gleissberg cycles with periods close to 1470/7 (~210) and 1470/17 (~86.5) years have been proposed to explain our observations.
personally I am sticking to 88 years, for the current cycle (the cycle we are in).
hence my proposal that over this 88 year cycle which in itself consists of 4 full solar cycles of each 22 years, the line of SSN versus time must become flat, more or less.
Indeed according to my own data set of yearly mean SSN the line is flat or nearly flat from 1927 -2010 with an average of 67. The slope of -0.04 could also be due to where we are now in the De Vries cycle? (I have no idea where we are now within the De Vries cycle)
you also have not reacted to your other misunderstanding on what happens TOA.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/28/solar-spectral-irradiance-uv-and-declining-solar-activity/#comment-1463298
Don’t tell others here of not understanding the “basics” as it sounds the same as calling me a fool. Always remember this is being like at college / university and we are students and teachers to each other. In such a class we treat each other always with respect and dignity, no matter how much we disagree.
btw
I received my qualification in Datametrics (Statistics) from the University in South Africa cum laude.
HenryP says:
November 3, 2013 at 1:54 am
A careful study of maximum temperatures of the recent temperature records reveals that Earth is most likely on an 88 year A-C wave, the so-called Gleissberg solar/weather cycle, with ca. 44 years of warming followed by 44 years of cooling.
I was looking into the solar cycle asymmetricity issue. The quasi metacycles one quite well can see in SSN integral. Something from results you can see e.g. here Mind the trends. But I still lack sound theory, what mechanism could cause something like that and the period doesn’t look like fixed, so I’m not much prone to take such things at face value.
so, Tumi, to put you in the picture:
The De Vries/Suess and Gleissberg cycles with periods close to 1470/7 (~210) and 1470/17 (~86.5) years have been proposed to explain our observations.
personally I am sticking to 88 years, for the current cycle (the cycle we are in).
I’m not much into the cyclomania, I don’t belive the things are so simple.
hence my proposal that over this 88 year cycle which in itself consists of 4 full solar cycles of each 22 years, the line of SSN versus time must become flat, more or less.
Indeed according to my own data set of yearly mean SSN the line is flat or nearly flat from 1927 -2010 with an average of 67. The slope of -0.04 could also be due to where we are now in the De Vries cycle? (I have no idea where we are now within the De Vries cycle)
I don’t know what yearly SSN data you have, but the data at WFT are 20% too high after 1947 and doesn’t agree with other solar indices. I definitely don’t believe 1927 -2016 SSN trend will be flat. It is simply utterly impossible given the current low solar activity and given all the indices, indicating the SC24 peak in the beginning of 2012. Even if I would unconditionally believe the quasi-cycle given by rectangular SSN integral, the trend can’t level in 2016, because solar cycles are asymmetric, so it can’t happen in SC24 and most probably not even SC25.
you also have not reacted to your other misunderstanding on what happens TOA.
I actually did.
Don’t tell others here of not understanding the “basics” as it sounds the same as calling me a fool. Always remember this is being like at college / university and we are students and teachers to each other. In such a class we treat each other always with respect and dignity, no matter how much we disagree.
btw
I received my qualification in Datametrics (Statistics) from the University in South Africa cum laude.
Then it is even worse when you’re unable to use what you’ve learned. It is nonsense to make arbitrary period trends through asymmetric periodic signal. It will not work. The SSN scale is too wide and the SSN signal too asymmetric to get meaningful results without extremely careful choosing trend periods.
And btw I don’t much understand what respect to others you find in repeating nonsenses into oblivion, even others tell you, what is wrong with it. If you want dignity, you should first understand what is it – if you don’t want to look or be called fool then first don’t make it from yourself.
I’m definitely not your teacher, nor student. That was you who answered my reply to Leif, mentoring me whether I know what’s correlation, never answering my question what correlation you mean, of what with what, in the first place, claiming that line from 1950 is flat, when it has anyway no meaning whatsoever, moreover directing me that I should forget about SSN and look into your temperatures – where I was anyway looking already, because you already linked me to it and haven’t found there anything much interesting. It doesn’t look to me too polite nor dignified, when it is clear, that my original post here was about SSN, its trends (which are there and quite well coinciding with the last warming period, although there are multiple reasons given by basic of basics physics, why the solar activity can’t correlate well with surface temperatures, especially not with sea surface temperature at short timescales) and generally solar activity – which is the topic of this thread – not speaking that first you must have solar activity, then the resulting surplus radiation absorbed, converted to heat content, then the heat content must get somehow on the surface, because loads of it is generated several meters below it, concentrated enough to produce a temperature change and only then maybe you get some your temperatures. So please don’t try to teach me how to behave, before you learn it yourself.
Tumi says
It is nonsense to make arbitrary period trends
Henry says
you keep saying this, when I went out of my way to show you in at least three different ways that the choice of a 87 or 88 year (Gleissberg) cycle was not arbitrary
It is the only way to explain my own results?
btw my own ssn data came from here:
ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/space-weather/solar-data/solar-indices/sunspot-numbers/international/tables/table_international-sunspot-numbers_yearly.txt
The truth is: you have no “own” results
so you rely on observations made by others which could be subjective….
yet, you keep on claiming that I am the one who is talking “nonsense in oblivion”
How dare you insulting me when you have no results?
Tumi says
I’m not much into the cyclomania, I don’t belive the things are so simple.(sic)
henry says
you can believe and defend whatever opinion you have here as long as you treat or learn to treat others who think or believe differently with respect.
HenryP says:
November 3, 2013 at 9:36 am
you keep saying this, when I went out of my way to show you in at least three different ways that the choice of a 87 or 88 year (Gleissberg) cycle was not arbitrary
It is the only way to explain my own results?
Yeah, indeed it is not arbitrary – 88 years is 8 solar average cycles which is 2^3, so any harmonic analysis must get the number, which doesn’t mean it is a metacycle.
btw my own ssn data came from here:
ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/space-weather/solar-data/solar-indices/sunspot-numbers/international/tables/table_international-sunspot-numbers_yearly.txt
Yeah, incorrect ISN yearly, published by NOAA, so what? Why you have Leif here, the very man who corrected it and finally it makes sense, when you don’t listen?
The truth is: you have no “own” results
so you rely on observations made by others which could be subjective…
Again the same relativistic nonsense, how many times it was already discussed here…hundreds of times?
yet, you keep on claiming that I am the one who is talking “nonsense in oblivion”
How dare you insulting me when you have no results?
…what results you have? -the non-leveling nonsensical SSN trendlines at WFT? Stating the obvious that 8 solar cycles last 88 years or that southern hemisphere is warmer than the northern?
you can believe and defend whatever opinion you have here as long as you treat or learn to treat others who think or believe differently with respect.
I don’t like flames, but it was you who quite impolitely commented on my reply intended to somebody else and pushed again your spam full of mistakes, we have seen so many times here already. It is really not my fault it doesn’t make much sense and I’m never far to tell the obvious, it is not my fault you don’t listen to objections and instead become defensive – thats usually sign of argument weakness. But you can stay calm, next time I’ll definitely respect your opinions and so to speak leave them to others to be replied, you can be absolutely sure about it.
lsvalgaard says:
November 2, 2013 at 5:37 pm
Carla says:
November 2, 2013 at 5:03 pm
The following figure puts in to perspective
You are completely missing the boat here…
—–
What boat?
What part of the helioglow, extended corona, halo or whatever you want to call it is due to the suns own gravitational focusing of interstellar neutrals?
Inflow direction of interstellar neutrals deduced from pickup ion measurements at 1 AU
Christian Drews1,*, Lars Berger1, Robert F. Wimmer-Schweingruber1,
Peter Bochsler2, Antoinette B. Galvin2, Berndt Klecker3,
Eberhard Möbius2,4
22 SEP 2012
[1] Observations of interstellar pickup ions inside the heliosphere provide an indirect method to access information on the surrounding interstellar medium. The so-called pickup ion focusing cone and pickup ion crescent, which show an imprint of the related longitudinal distribution of interstellar neutrals in form of two overabundances on the down- and upwind side of the sun, are both believed to be aligned along the inflow vector of the interstellar medium. By finding their longitudinal positions, we can give an accurate value for the inflow direction λISM of interstellar matter. For that we performed an epoch analysis of interstellar pickup ions measured by the PLAsma and SupraThermal Ion Composition instrument (PLASTIC) on the Solar TErrestrial RElations Observatory mission (STEREO) and were able to reveal in situ the longitudinal distribution of interstellar He+, O+, and Ne+ pickup ions in the ecliptic plane at 1 AU. The previously accepted values for the inflow direction of interstellar matter in ecliptic longitude, as obtained with Ulysses/GAS (λ = 75.4° ± 0.5°), Prognoz 6 (λ = 74.5° ± 1°), and ACE/SWICS (λ = 74.43° ± 0.33°), are currently debated, especially in view of recent results from the Interstellar Boundary Explorer (IBEX) mission that show an inflow direction of interstellar neutral helium of λ = 79° + 3.0°(−3.5°). Four years of data collected with PLASTIC aboard STEREO A provided statistics sufficient not only to obtain values for the inflow direction of interstellar helium (λCone = 77.4° ± 1.9° and λCrescent = 80.4° ± 5.4°, deduced from an analysis of the He+ focusing cone and crescent, respectively) but also to derive values for the inflow direction of interstellar neon (λCone = 77.4° ± 5.0° and λCrescent = 79.7° ± 2.6°) and oxygen (λCrescent = 78.9° ± 3.1°). Although our values for He+, O+, and Ne+ are consistent with results from ACE, Ulysses, and Prognoz 6, considering the statistical and systematic uncertainties (except λNe,Crescent), they are systematically larger than the previously accepted values of 74.99 ± 0.55° and show a better agreement with the values from IBEX.
Carla says:
November 3, 2013 at 4:04 pm
What boat?
What part of the helioglow, extended corona, halo or whatever you want to call it is due to the suns own gravitational focusing of interstellar neutrals?
That the solar wind is MUCH denser and massive than the interstellar medium which then has no influence on what the Sun is doing. Take a place in the high corona, say at 10 solar radii distance from the Sun. The density there has a certain value. So, the heliopause is 2000 times further away, which means that the density out there is 2000 squared = 4 million times smaller than in the high corona. That extremely thin solar wind is holding off the interstellar medium, so it doesn’t matter what that medium is doing or what the sun is doing to that. There are no effects on the Sun from the interstellar medium.
I have been talking with some friends and associates about a mechanism that would appear to explain (at least in some reasonably meaningful detail, where today this is lacking) how the Sun can modulate Earth’s temperatures. One of these colleagues pointed me to de Jager’s recent paper via this URL (I drop by wattsupwiththat.com very occasionally otherwise):
The appears to be a form of highly resonantly-harmonized plasma flows from coronal holes and generally from poleward locations of the Sun (perhaps corresponding to the solar polar magnetic field components, in contrast to the solar equatorial magnetic fields components, both studied by de Jager in connection with correlations to Earth temperatures). Let’s call this highly resonantly-harmonized plasma flow “Heavy Coupled Plasma” (or HCP, for short).
During solar minimum, 1) the strong poloidal field of the Sun pushes these HCP flows more into the heliospheric current sheet (HCS), 2) the HCP flows may themselves are perhaps more active, and, 3) the HCS is flatter, so any HCP flows coupled through the HCS will more frequently encounter the Earth system. Once encountering the Earth system, the HCPs heighten the drag on Earth’s magnetotail (for several reasons, that are covered in a lengthy draft manuscript), which is the primary energetic interchange mechanism between the interplanetary plasma medium and the Earth’s own plasma system. These HCPs couple energy through various processes (including so called “reconnections” in Earth’s magnetotail/plasmatail), which resonates with the waveguide like magnetosphere/magnetotail system (which would be better called plasma Earth system, since it is both magnetic and mass effects that are important, especially when it comes to HCP). There are numerous (conjectured) effects of HCP (for which there is signature evidence): heightened cardiac arrest, heightened heart rate variability, increased extreme weather events, increased geomagnetically induced currents in the electric power grid, increased anomalies on geosynchronous satellites (others, but especially geosynchronous) … and … drum roll … very likely on ionization rates and cloud nucleation rates.
It is this part of our discussions that I suspect this group will be most interested in — that HCPs appear correlated to ionization rate and cloud nucleation rates.
But there is more. As waves and particles penetrate the interface between the interplanetary plasma medium and the plasma Earth system, they eventually equilibrate in many ways — e.g., at higher altitudes there are many charged particles circulating around the Earth in the ring current (which gets stronger during geomagnetic storm events, or plasma storm events, so we know the ring current is very much connected to solar activity). But as we look closer to Earth level the charge differences moderate through various processes into the substantial neutral atmosphere (neutral at least in comparison to the ionosphere).
But how do these charged particles flow in the ionosphere? Or even in the upper atmosphere (there isn’t a hard boundary of course)? In the ring current, the positive ions (and protons) circulate around the Earth clockwise, while the negative electrons circulate in THE OPPOSITE direction around the Earth counterclockwise. If you’ve never pictured this, please do so for a moment.
A key feature of this combination of positive ions circling the Earth clockwise and negative electrons circling the Earth counterclockwise is an effect called “plasma laning” – which in layperson’s term is no more and no less than what happens on a crowded sidewalk where people going East will follow others going East, and people going West will follow others going West. It is a minimum energy state that is naturally sought in both systems.
So then imagine what happens when these HCPs (Heavy Coupled Plasma flows, in case you forgot) encounter plasma laning features? You guessed it. It throws them into turmoil, causing ionization (conjecturally, but with evidence to support), and then also cloud nucleation.
(I think all readers here are likely aware of the following but will mention just to insure.) There have been numerous studies (de Jager’s is but one) that show correlation between solar cycles and Earth temperature. The thing missing has always been an explanation with sufficient leverage, i.e., solar irradiance fluctuations are simply way too small. Svenmark’s clouds have a better change, but still it does not seem wholly convincing that cosmic rays are up to the job. But if you take the cosmic rays and plasma laning disruptions together (and maybe the cosmic rays are concomitant effects with the HCPs) then I believe one may have a conjecture for solar modulation of Earth temperatures that might offer sufficient leverage of the cloud coverage to explain the many observed correlations.
de Jager’s paper is supporting of this conjecture because he finds a linkage between the polar magnetic field strengths and Earth temperatures, but struggles to explain it in detail:
“For the contribution related to the polar ensemble of activities a quantitative physical explanation has not yet been forwarded, but in view of the negative sign of the constants b and d in Equations (1) and (2) we infer that the most probable candidate for polar sun-induced warming is the solar wind emanating from coronal holes.”
It seems that de Jager had a hard time imagining what effect from the polar ensemble of activities could influence temperature. Given the depiction of HCPs above, which is not yet present in specific in the space physics literature, this is not surprising. In fact, there appears to be a broad general presumption that it is during the height of the solar sunspot cycle that the Sun is the most energetic Earthward, but discussions with colleagues here (together with a fair amount of secondary research of many results showing effects anticorrelated to sunspot cycle) brings this presumption into question.
There may be a reason that the Heavy Coupled Plasma/HCP flows may have received little notice: they may represent dark matter or dark energy. The fundamental point is that there is extensive evidence supporting a conjecture of HCP flows (the draft manuscript is currently in review, please get in touch if you know or are someone with expertise in multiple of the relevant disciplines required to validate the conjecture, space physics, particle physics, astrophysics, Heliophysics, perhaps even heliobiology because some of the signatures are there, space weather and satellites, space weather and electric power grids: Burkhart@alumni.caltech.edu).
There are other phenomena that appear, quite possibly, to be explainable by Heavy Coupled Plasma (neutrino flavors and oscillations, Redshift, isotope decay rate accelerations/oscillations, and even the Earth and Moon orbits). But the most impactful appears possibly to be lengthy electric power grid failure, which seems to me quite likely to represent the chief natural disaster humanity faces, if we do not better protect electric power grids and satellites from solar influences (harsh space weather) — the 1859 Carrington Event type event, perhaps.
Hey, sorry for the long post; but hopefully it will be beneficial to readers — and maybe help sound science move forward a smidge.