Magnetism and Weather: Interconnections?

Opinion; Dr. Tim Ball

Way back in the last century, I suggested that in this 21st century the dominant issue in science would be magnetism and in resources water. This especially applies to climatology, where, thanks to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), they are either marginalized or ignored. It is not the only damage the IPCC have done. They kept the focus almost exclusively on CO2, and temperature within the atmosphere, at the expense of many other factors. William Kininmonth explains,

Climate models track the transfer of energy through the Earth system. The only boundary condition to the Earth system is solar intensity; everything else is dependent on the composition and physical/chemical/biological processes within the Earth system.

The recent article about the role of the “oceanic conveyor belt” in climate is nothing new, but is a reminder of IPCC narrowness. It is even worse with regard to extraterrestrial factors. Simple solar system activities, like the Milankovitch Effect or Svensmark’s Cosmic Theory, are barely included in their discussion and excluded from their models.

Too often, phenomena are considered, but rarely right back to the original mechanism. For example, everybody talks about El Nino and La Nina and accept they are caused by ocean current reversals, but suface ocean currents are created by wind, so the wind has to reverse first. But what makes the winds reverse? The upper level tropical easterlies have to weaken, stop, and start blowing in the opposite direction. What causes that? Van Loon and Labitzke showed correlations between sunspots and El Nino, but what was the mechanism?

clip_image002

Figure 1

Similarly, the Jet Stream shifts from Zonal to Meridional Wave patterns (Figure 1), but what causes that change?

Most of the considerations overlook physical causes, particularly wind, whether as advection within the atmosphere, or the solar wind impinging on the magnetosphere and the atmosphere.

Magnetic Reversals

Svensmark’s Theory related variation in solar magnetism to variation in low cloud cover and thus global temperature. It addressed two major issues in climate. First, it provided a mechanism of cause and effect between variations in sunspot numbers, an external forcing, and the internal result, varying global temperature. Second, it explained how there was more cloud formation and precipitation than the estimated available condensation nuclei.

One potential event is bringing magnetism into the public forum, but as usual, it is being exploited. The Earths magnetic field has been weakening for approximately 1000 years (Figure 2) and a simple trend extension suggests it will weaken to zero in the near future. The questions are, will the trend continue, and if it does, when will zero occur?

Like most alarmist exploitations, it is nothing new. Reversals occur on a regular and relatively frequent basis. Periods called Epochs fluctuate between Normal, as at present, with Reverse conditions. Discovery of these polarity reversals was important in establishing the continental drift theory. As lava emerges and cools, when it reaches the Curie Point, magnetically sensisitive minerals align with the existing polarity. The lava layers are a record of the changing polarity. The problem is it is a crude measure, so it’s unclear how long the process takes. We know extensive extinctions occur at the same time, but other impacts are not known. Does it affect the climate? The larger question is how magnetism affects weather in general.

NASA said in September 2013 that we were within 3 to 4 months of a polar magnetic reversal. They were wrong, but now a new paper says it will occur some time in the next 100 years. Either way, alarmists and the sensationalist media see another opportunity. To paraphrase Rahm Emmanuel, the mantra among environmentalists is to “Never let a good catastrophe go to waste.”

clip_image004

Figure 2

Evidence suggests there is no potential harm to humans as one commenter observed,

“The human race has survived many excursions and a few reversals already: so we are likely to come through the next one unscathed.”

Some suggest the Olduvai event was pivotal in human evolution, as that region of Africa is apparently important in the anthropological record. Some attribute demise of the Neanderthals to magnetic reversals, but why them and not others.

What happened to the weather during the reversals? Some researchers link them to dramatic weather pattern changes, but also to volcanic eruptions.

…the GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences described the connection between the Laschamp magnetic reversal, the Phlegrean Field (Campi Flegrei) volcanic eruption that devastated most of southeastern Europe, and periods of frequent rapid cooling and warming.

It is not clear if the weather fluctuations are due to volcanic dust or the reversal. This is not surprising because few consider magnetism as a factor and most assume that an exterenal forcing will affect all global temperature globally.

Earth’s Magnetism and Weather

What do we know about relationships between the Earth’s magnetic field and weather? The answer is very little, mostly due to the IPCC hijack, but also inadequate data and knowledge of mechanisms. Are people using solar or earth’s magnetism for weather forecasting? If your forecast works then you likely have the science correct, unlike the IPCC. It looked promising when a search found such sites such as Environment Canada’s “Space Weather”. It was actually a forecast of magnetic activity over Canada. (Figure 2)

clip_image006

Figure 2

There is, to my knowledge, no connection made by EC between this information and the underlying weather. This, despite the fact some are beginning to examine the issue. For example, an article in ScienceDaily is titled, “Sun’s Magnetic Field May Impact Weather and Climate: Sun Cycle Can Predict Rainfall Fluctuations”, references a 2008 work by Baker et al in Geophysical Research , but more on that later. One Aurora information web site from the University of Alaska answers the question, “Does the aurora have an effect on the environment?” with a simple, “Yes, but limited to the high altitude atmosphere.”

They are also primarily a high latitude event, but observations in lower latitudes are a sign of expansion of the dome of cold polar air. In England they were also called Lord Derwentwater’s lights because they were unusually bright on February 24th 1716, when he was beheaded. A bad omen for him, but are they indicators of anything else?

Flying in the arctic and later examining historic records of the region, I became familiar with the importance of these lights for northern indigenous people. They and the fur traders, who called them Petty Dancers from the French petite danseurs, used them as weather indicators.

The Cree in Manitoba forecast cold weather for three to four weeks after a prolonged display. Henry Youle Hind, leader of a scientific expedition across Canada, wrote about Ojibway predictions. On the 19th of September 1858 he wrote:

We arrived at the mouth of the river at 10 A.M., and hastened to avail ourselves of a south-east wind just to rise. Last night the aurora was very beautiful, and extended far beyond the zenith, leading the voyageurs to predict a windy day. The notion prevails with them that when the aurora is low, the following day will be calm; when high, stormy.

Samuel Hearne spent 2 1/2 years with the Chipewyan, (he called them Northern Indians), and wrote in his journal,

The Northern Indians call the Aurora Borealis , Ed-thin; and when that meteor is very bright, they say that deer is plentiful in that part of the atmosphere;,,, Their ideas in this respect are founded on a principle one would not imagine. Experience has shewn tham, that when a hairy deer-skin is briskly stroked with the hand in a dark night, it will emit many sparks of electrical fire, as the back of a cat will.

This effectively describes the phenomenon of static electricity. It is remarkably close to the current explanation of the aurora as an interaction between the solar wind, exciting gas particles of nitrogen and oxygen, causing a neon type glow.

There are some interesting studies that point to a relationship and impact not considered by most, especially the IPCC. For example, in 1974 J. King published Weather and Earth’s Magnetic Field. The abstract says,

A comparison of meteorological pressures and the strength of the geomagnetic field suggests a possible controlling influence of the field on the longitudinal variation of the average pressure in the troposphere at high latitudes. If so, changes which occur in the pattern of ‘permanent’ depressions in the troposphere as the magnetic field varies (for example, as the non-dipole component of the field drifts westwards) may be accompanied by climatic changes.

Another study by Professor Baker links solar activity to precipitation, concludes,

“The interaction between the directionality in the Sun’s and Earth’s magnetic fields, the incidence of ultraviolet radiation over the tropical Pacific, and changes in sea surface temperatures with cloud cover – could all contribute to an explanation of substantial changes in the SOI from solar cycle fluctuations. If solar cycles continue to show relational values to climate patterns, there is the potential for more accurate forecasting through to 2010 and possibly beyond.”

The sun’s magnetic field may have a significant impact on weather and climatic parameters in Australia and other countries in the northern and southern hemispheres. Droughts are related to the solar magnetic phases and not the greenhouse effect, according to new research.

 

A recent article on WUWT provides another perspective on,

a correlation between the Interplanetary Magnetic Field (IMF) and polar jet streams, which drive weather events on Earth.

This trend of articles on solar activity and weather suggests it is time to revisit my long-term interest. The quote, “To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven”, is appropriate. All of these factors attracted my interest during research for my doctoral thesis. I discovered a very strong 22-year cycle in a spectral analysis of a long precipitation record for two weather records. One, Churchill, is climatically sub arctic. The other, York Factory is mid-latitude and within the boreal forest. York has the 22-year pattern, but Churchill does not. This mid-latitude precipitation pattern, links with research of drought cycles on the Canadian Prairies. (“Climatic Change, Droughts and Their Social Impact: Central Canada, 1811-20, a classic example.” In C.R.Harington (ed) The Year Without a Summer? World Climate in 1816. 1992).

I also wrote an article for John Daly’s website speaking to a possible mechanism linking solar activity with variations in weather patterns. It stemmed from Environment Canada’s public claims and weather forecasts based on El Nino. It became the forecast fad after 1983 when El Nino pushed into southern California. This was north of its previous, more general, northern South America/Central America location and nothing grabs headlines like beach houses at Malibu being washed away.

Despite using El Nino for their forecasts EC were consistently wrong. I tried to explain that El Nino does not affect Canada; it only appeared like it, because the mechanism that changed El Nino also caused changes in the Jet Stream. What they were doing, was akin to saying that they watched cars and noticed every time the front bumper moved the back bumper moved. They concluded that the front bumper was causing the back bumper to move.

I proposed that a major mechanism is the varying pressure of the Solar Wind on the magnetosphere, down through the layers to the atmosphere, where it causes changes in the major wind patterns. The mechanism has to accommodate two major wind situations. First, is the reversal of upper troposphere equatorial winds, second, is the change from Zonal to Meridional Flow in the Jet Stream. This is achieved if you consider the atmosphere as a bellows that expands and contracts with increasing and decreasing Solar wind pressure. It creates a push-pull effect that causes the weaker tropical winds to stop or reverse and the much stronger Jet Stream to switch between low amplitude Zonal Flow and high amplitude Meridional Flow.

Those who only study one small piece of the complex puzzle that is weather and climate will make specious unhelpful comments, as usual. Others, especially those trying to make more accurate weather and thereby climate forecasts, will understand. We know the IPCC and all national forecasts are consistently wrong. We also know some achieve better results, but they are marginalized and ridiculed by the “official” agencies. Even mention of them here will trigger the cynicism. In general, for seasonal and annual patterns of weather, the Old Farmers Almanac has a reasonable record. It uses sunspot activity among other things. Piers Corbyn survives in the marketplace, where, if he were consistently wrong he would be out of business. His results gained attention from the Mayor of London.

I have not a clue whether his methods are sound or not. But when so many of his forecasts seem to come true, and when he seems to be so consistently ahead of the Met Office, I feel I want to know more.

Corbyn does not disclose his input and methods for commercial reasons. We do know magnetism is part of the mix. The IPCC, and some of its participants, do not fully disclose method and input with no justification, although we know they don’t include magnetism. Their motive is also commercial. They need to keep the industry of deception going, which requires keeping government and crony capitalist funding flowing. It doesn’t matter if the forecasts fail, the political success it what matters. It is essential for them to include or exclude factors that achieve the political goal. Unfortunately, too many skeptics are also unaware of many of the factors, but at least most of them are willing to listen.

Advertisements

190 thoughts on “Magnetism and Weather: Interconnections?

  1. And the earth’s magnetic field is influenced by its electrical connection to the sun. Understanding the electrical nature of the sun is key to understanding earth’s climate and weather.

      • No, electromagnetic connection is plain sunlight taking 8 minutes to reach the Earth. An electric and a magnetic connection are completely different things. An electric connection would be a net electric charge flowing from the Sun [and there isn’t any]. A magnetic connection is the frozen-in magnetic field dragged into a spiral shape taking 4 days to reach the Earth.

      • Theres no such thing as a frozen in magnetic field field. Plasma is not a perfect conductor. It still has a small amount of resistance. The magnetic field changes smoothly with changes in the electron flow. There is no such thing as field lines. The magnetic field is smooth. Field Lines are just a pedagogical tool to indicate flux density and do not actually exist.
        Flux tubes carry kinetic energy from one end to the other. Moving electrons can be considered a current.

      • Dr. Svalgaard, I assume you’d also say there’s no electrical connection between the AC power line in my house and the magnetron that cooks the food in my microwave oven? After all, there’s a magnetic transformer separating them, right?
        Okay, technically it’s true…there’s no transfer of actual electrons between the line and the load, but there nevertheless seems to be some kind of correlation between the flows of electricity in the two, and more importantly, how hot the hot pocket gets. I’m going to go ahead and say probably the reason the hot pocket got hot was because of electricity. It may leave out a couple of steps.
        I don’t mean this to make any kind of point or take any kind of stand on whether the sun’s magnetism affects terrestrial weather. I wouldn’t dare. I know virtually nothing about it; certainly much less than you. So I’m not defending the article, or Mark’s statement that understanding the electrical connection is key to understanding climate. But absolutely denying an electrical connection between sun and earth while simultaneously positively affirming a strong magnetic connection between the two seems a little silly and pointless. Nitpicking in the best interpretation, just being wrong in the worst. Does the sun cause corona? Is corona an electrical effect? There may be a couple of links in that chain, but I personally I don’t have a problem with someone calling that chain an electrical connection.

      • Nancy C October 29, 2014 at 11:50 pm
        But absolutely denying an electrical connection between sun and earth while simultaneously positively affirming a strong magnetic connection between the two seems a little silly and pointless.
        Mother Nature is not silly. What is so hard for all of us to understand [because we live in non-conducting air] is that the rules are different in a highly-conducting plasma. Almost all ‘solar threads’ ends the same way: people not understanding the rules for plasma railing against reality helped along by ‘know-it-alls’ who actually don’t understand it either. In another thread I have linked to a chapter by Gene Parker, the ‘father of the solar wind’
        http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s8454.pdf
        “So one way or another, there is no significant persistent large-scale electric field in a plasma (collisionless or collision dominated). One might say that a plasma abhors electric fields and invariably finds a means to
        avoid them. Only by reducing the degree of ionization of a gas to negligible values, e.g., the lower terrestrial atmosphere where we reside, is there a possibility for interesting large-scale electric field effects.” The chapter is well worth a read. Thousands of comments in scores of threads have discussed this, but many people display willful ignorance on the subject.

      • As I have always understood it (an engineer, not a physicist) electricity and magnetism are inter-related – an electric current sets up a magnetic field. I hope you’ll note that I didn’t say they are one and the same thing (like mass and energy), but closely related.
        Googling it, to reinforce my interpretation, I found this rather useful piece:
        http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/~infocom/Ideas/electric.html
        “Electricity and magnetism are essentially two aspects of the same thing, because a changing electric field creates a magnetic field, and a changing magnetic field creates an electric field.”

      • (There is little of any value I can add to a solar article… and much confusion.)
        But in this case lsvalgaard is just right, it seems to me.
        The magnetic field connects the Earth and the Sun. There is no current flowing between them.
        The question of a potential voltage being induced at the Earth’s end may need further discussion. But that isn’t an electric connection between the Earth and the Sun (or vice versa).
        (Now the confusion) What effect does a lunar eclipse have on the magnetic connection – the moon contains iron and silicon after, all?
        And electric solar system proponents, what predictions do you have about an eclipse?
        Let’s test this.

      • Biot-Savart Law .. it is 195 years old. Geese!
        It describes the magnetic field generated by an electric current.
        Interaction is the key point of inquiry IMO.
        We have a mildly varying electric and magnetic field from the sun, we have a hugely varying dynamo within the earth. Varying in spatial attributes, intensity and sense.
        I doubt that anyone can definitively rule out climate effects due to the interaction of the solar fields and the earth fields. Step up for your Nobel Prize when you manage that.
        The mammoth ball of liquid iron which constitutes the core of the earth and likely is the cause of the induced magnetic field around our earth, protecting it from the sun. Mars does not have a liquid iron core, and therefore no field, ergo no atmosphere that supports life and a brutal climate.

      • One more time: it is not how long the reversal lasted [hundreds of years], but how long the field was very low [thousands of year] that matters. This is the reality. Your ill-founded ad-homs [here and elsewhere] do you no glory, just puts you in the same category as other foulmouthed trolls of which we have so many [so you are in good company].

    • Thanks for this link a few posts up (there is no reply button there):
      http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s8454.pdf
      Although I am not into HD or MHD, I think I got the central message, which to me goes something like: “due to our specific Earth conditions the magnetic and electric field do appear to be the two sides of the same coin, but generally in the cosmos out there they are not”. If so I may feel a bit wiser now, all the while trying to avoid the Dunning-Kruger effect. Though that may be in vain, as we all are “confident idiots”. David Dunning himself states it here:
      http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/confident-idiots-92793/

    • That was only a 400-500 year event. Would that have been long enough at the depth of an ice age to have a measurable effect?

      • The dating range from 1990 to 2010 is a duration of 20 years. This is how you convert a range to a duration: subtract the early date from the later date.
        The reversal as such is not important as the climate would not know about the sign of the field. What is important is how long the field was really low and hence how long the cosmic ray flux was really high. But, as I said, people like you would seek far and long for invalid excuses.

      • You aren’t even seeking far and wide to avoid facing reality, but merely refusing to read studies which show your cherished misconceptions false. How can you call yourself a scientist when you refuse to face objective reality?
        The observed fact is that the reversal lasted only hundreds of years, not the thousands that you incorrectly imagined, apparently from failing to understand what you read about dating.
        The sooner NASA cuts off your funding, the better. Your “work” and fixed, baseless opinions are a prime example of how totally twisted government funded science has become. I’m reminded or your former refusal on this blog to correct an obvious error about Icelandic volcano dating and of your efforts to force colleagues to accept your man-made climate change supporting mutilation of historical SSN counts. This is not science but advocacy. You should be ashamed.

      • While you don’t want to read the paper, others might. Here is the link and the abstract. Clearly, the commenter was right and you were wrong:
        http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X12003421
        Earth and Planetary Science Letters
        Volumes 351–352, 15 October 2012, Pages 54–69
        Dynamics of the Laschamp geomagnetic excursion from Black Sea sediments
        N.R. Nowaczyka, , ,
        H.W. Arza, b,
        U. Franka,
        J. Kinda, c,
        B. Plessena
        Abstract
        Investigated sediment cores from the southeastern Black Sea provide a high-resolution record from mid latitudes of the Laschamp geomagnetic polarity excursion. Age constraints are provided by 16 AMS 14C ages, identification of the Campanian Ignimbrite tephra (39.28±0.11 ka), and by detailed tuning of sedimentologic parameters of the Black Sea sediments to the oxygen isotope record from the Greenland NGRIP ice core. According to the derived age model, virtual geomagnetic pole (VGP) positions during the Laschamp excursion persisted in Antarctica for an estimated 440 yr, making the Laschamp excursion a short-lived event with fully reversed polarity directions. The reversed phase, centred at 41.0 ka, is associated with a significant field intensity recovery to 20% of the preceding strong field maximum at ∼50 ka. Recorded field reversals of the Laschamp excursion, lasting only an estimated ∼250 yr, are characterized by low relative paleointensities (5% relative to 50 ka). The central, fully reversed phase of the Laschamp excursion is bracketed by VGP excursions to the Sargasso Sea (∼41.9 ka) and to the Labrador Sea (∼39.6 ka). Paleomagnetic results from the Black Sea are in excellent agreement with VGP data from the French type locality which facilitates the chronological ordering of the non-superposed lavas that crop out at Laschamp–Olby. In addition, VGPs between 34 and 35 ka reach low northerly to equatorial latitudes during a clockwise loop, inferred to be the Mono lake excursion.

      • As I said: it is not how long the field was reversed [hundreds of year] that is important, but how long the field was very low [thousands of year]. You seem to have missed that I as the first posted a link to the paper for people to read [and not just the abstract].

      • OK, it was lower longer, but even the abstract says it recovered rapidly to 20% of the previous very high reading. What would matter would be how long the 10Be readings changed as a result of the reversal, as those are indicative of the GCR flux, which might not vary directly proportionally with the reversal process.
        I apologize for calling for your funding to be cut, etc.

      • Accepted.
        Even 20% of its value is very low. Now there are two issues:
        1) Cosmic rays due to lower fields
        2) Does the field itself have an influence [the current topic].
        Some people say that even the small changes we see today have a significant influence, so the influence of a drastic reduction ought to be very obvious [it isn’t] for both issues.
        The standard excuse is that conditions today are different from those during a glaciation. That may be so, but for it to taken seriously the excuse would have to be ‘fleshed out’. What would be the mechanism or magnitude of those different conditions, otherwise it is just ‘special pleading’. If you could convincingly explain why or how those different conditions would mask the effect of the near disappearance of the field, I would be an instant convert. Until then, the Laschamp event, for me, is strong evidence against any effect of the magnetic field of the Earth.

      • Considering Dr Svaalgard’s latest statement here, I note that he has not responded to the research paper which I quoted below which suggests that climate changes would not have registered in the GISP core at the time and which furthermore demonstrates via speleothem growth rates that in fact climate did alter significantly during the Laschamp event; also during other geomagnetic excursions.

      • I have not commented as the subject is too ‘woolly’. Suggestions, and too many ‘could’, ‘might’, etc. Nothing specific [numbers] to comment on. Usually, when one has to explain away something, it is because there is nothing there to begin with, but I’m eager to know what precise mechanism or agents would be responsible for the different responses. Just saying that things don’t add up isn’t quite good enough [for me, at least].

      • Dr Svalgaard,
        You say “too woolly”. I think it was quite specific, but, for the avoidance of doubt, perhaps you will find this more specific:
        “North Atlantic marine cores are the only archive to register Heinrich events stricto senso (i.e. the IRD layer) together with their impact on ocean circulation characteristics. . . .
        The impact of Heinrich events is not limited to the North Atlantic but has a signature in mid to low latitude proxies. For instance speleothem growth rate and calcite isotopes( Kanner et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2007; Mosblech et al., 2012) indicate a southwards displacement of the intertropical convergence zone (ITCZ) which is more pronounced during stadials associated with Heinrich events than during stadials without Heinrich events. . .
        In Greenland ice cores, DO events are well dated thanks to annual layer counting. For the GICC05 timescale used here, absolute ages are estimated with ∼3% uncertainty (2σ) during the glacial period (Svensson et al., 2008, and Appendix A1). A precise synchronisation between marine and ice cores during HE remains however difficult to establish due to the lack of a HE fingerprint within the Greenland ice core records. . . .
        The cold and stable Greenland temperature during the entire GS-9 is further confirmed by an independent temperature reconstruction based on firn gas fractionation (δ15N, Fig.4b and Guillevic et al., 2013). Our new data therefore suggest a decoupling between stable, cold Greenland temperatures and changes in the climate of the mid latitude source region for Greenland precipitation.”
        http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/10/1179/2014/cpd-10-1179-2014-print.pdf
        This basically says to me that the Heinrich events, though associated with shifting climate and weather patterns further south, did not affect the cold stable climate further north in Greenland. Therefore the GISP cores, as traditionally analysed, do not show evidence for climate change events in lower latitudes. We have to rely upon other proxies, e.g. speleothems. Your contention that there is no evidence for climate change associated with the Laschamp Excursion, relying primarily as it does upon GISP core analysis, is therefore brought into doubt and, indeed, research has shown that speleothem growth ceased during the Laschamp Excursion.

  2. We cannot neglect the effect of the earth’s magnetic field, in direction or magnitude. Chaned in direction are so raid that they are recorded on maps! Geological and geophysical evidence demonstrates repeated reversals of the earth’s magnetism. Ipso facto the earth’s magnetic field goes through a null point. Svensmark has something to say about the magnetic field and climate. Listen up.

  3. The author seems to be confused. “NASA said in September 2013 that we were within 3 to 4 months of a polar magnetic reversal.” – OF THE SUN not the earth. It flips every cycle. From the same link: “The sun’s magnetic field changes polarity approximately every 11 years. It happens at the peak of each solar cycle as the sun’s inner magnetic dynamo re-organizes itself. The coming reversal will mark the midpoint of Solar Cycle 24. Half of “solar max” will be behind us, with half yet to come.”
    That has NOTHING to do with the relatively new claim that the earth’s magnetic field may flip “soon” (geologically speaking) and that in the past it has flipped in as short of a period as 100 years or so.
    http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2014/10/14/earths-magnetic-field-could-flip-within-a-human-lifetime/
    So am I confused or is the author?

  4. Hi from Oz. Tim, how does the fact that water is a polar molecule fit into the magnetic / electric idea? (I see the comments about solar electric vs magnetic solar fields, but magnetic fields induce electric currents, so a solar magnetic effect may well cause electric effects, hence my question.) I cannot believe that our atmosphere, with so much water vapour, exposed to so much electrical and magnetic field activity, is not affected significantly by all this, but I have no idea why or how.
    Regards,

    • Have a look at the work of Italian scientist Pier Luigi Ighina and his study of atoms. He found a way to slow down atoms so that he could study them. He noticed that there were different types of atoms including Magnetic atoms. He wrote a book in Italian called “La scoperta dell’atomo magnetico” (translation – the discovery of the magnetic atom”). His theory differs from main stream scientists who “excite” atoms and end up studying already “excited” atoms. The scientists smashing atoms together in the hadron collider do not understand the implications of what they are doing which could be very dangerous.
      Pier Luigi Ighina also had a theory about the magnetic interaction between the sun and the earth with magnetic particles travelling from the sun to the earth and from the earth to the sun in a spiral motion. Also have a look at the work of Edward Leedscanlin on magnetism, again not a “main stream” scientist but an interesting alternative viewpoint.

    • “how does the fact that water is a polar molecule fit into the magnetic / electric idea?… I cannot believe that our atmosphere, with so much water vapour, exposed to so much electrical and magnetic field activity, is not affected significantly by all this, but I have no idea why or how.”
      Good point. Try this at home. Turn on your empty microwave oven and see if you can heat the air inside it. The magnetic field strength of microwave oven is 47 microtesla. A strong geomagnetic storm is 0.25 microtesla. If microwave oven has no detectable effect on water vapor in air, solar wind has less detectable effect.

  5. Dr. Tim, always good to hear from you. However, I disagree with your assertion that:

    What causes that? Van Loon and Labitzke showed correlations between sunspots and El Nino, but what was the mechanism?

    Not true. What Van Loon and Labitzke claim to have shown are correlations between sunspots and El Nino IN THE OUTPUT OF A CLIMATE MODEL. Their work, as near as I can tell, didn’t use any data at all, just the output of the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis climate models.
    The problem is that the climate models are linear, and they have solar flux as part of their input. As a result of their linearity, whatever you input to the reanalysis models is very likely to appear in the output of the reanalysis models … so please, don’t repeat Van Loon and Labitzke’s error of thinking that climate reanalysis models are a reliable guide to climate interactions in the real, non-linear, actual world we live in.
    In a number of places, VL&L are claiming correlations between sunspots and temperature of 0.70, 0.80, and even 0.90 … perhaps you believe that kind of claim without running the numbers yourself. Me, I know that such correlations in climate datasets are un-heard of, particularly regarding sunspots. So I’d need to see their data and code and run the math myself to know how they got it so wrong … but fortunately for me, they haven’t archived code as used or data as used, so I’m spared the problem.
    In any case, it’s only an analysis of climate model outputs, so it is meaningless whether or not they did the math correctly.
    Finally, let me say that I’ve long held that the electromagnetic aspect of the weather is the least understood of all six of the main climate subsystems (ocean, atmosphere, cryosphere, lithosphere, biosphere, and electromagnetosphere). So my thanks for highlighting this mysterious and important corner of the weather and climate.
    My best to you,
    w.

  6. It has been noted that long term global temperature anomaly correlates to the changes in the rate of the Earth’s rotation. Now for the first time, in this paper
    https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01071375v2/document
    it is clearly shown that the bi-decadal rate of change in the Earth’s rotation, directly follows solar magnetic polarity oscillations (all data and method available for an easy replication)
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-LOD.gif
    “The Earth’s rotation acceleration is concurrent with decay of the even and continues during rise of the odd cycles. The rotation deceleration is concurrent with decay of the odd and continues during rise of the even cycles ; in other words change in the rate of the Earth’s rotation follows the hemispheric sunspots’ magnetic (Hale) cycle.”

  7. I have seen, and conducted, experiments causing high and low-pressure vortices in both water and air with nothing but DC current and a magnet. And wouldn’t you know it, when you reverse the polarity of the magnet (but keep the current flow the same) the direction of the vortices changes direction (just as you’d expect from electrical engineering 101).
    The brilliance of this is that the vortices correspond precisely with the direction of rotation observed in the earth’s atmosphere for high and low pressure systems in their respective hemispheres. Of course, without the electric current, absolutely nothing happens in either water or atmosphere. A problem for those claiming magnetism without its electrical component (a clear sign of people not understanding electromagnetism).

    • Interesting, but isn’t the direction of rotation of systems in the atmosphere already explained by the Coriolis force?

    • Spacecraft charging creating high potentials between different structures on a satellite is the biggest danger to them, apart from debris of course.
      The source of these charges mostly come from the Sun or sometimes charged devices and propellant. But yes the magnetosphere plays a big part in reducing the background space potential.
      Other ways are to use plasma devices such as contactors, cathodes or ion engines. There are quite a few groups studying spacecraft plasma interactions and how to mitigate them for deep space or interplanetary missions.

  8. It almost seems inconceivable that solar electromagnetic activity does not drive changes in our coupled ocean-atmosphere system. The fact that we have failed thus far to positively identify the (probably numerous) mechanisms involved is no excuse for dismissing those interconnections as irrelevant. Much progress has recently been made in this direction and I am sure continued research, now that CO2-mania is at last beginning to subside, will reveal just how important electromagnetic effects upon our weather and climate are.
    Let’s face it. Earth is basically an inert speck of rock with a weak internally generated geomagnetic field circling a huge electromagnetic heat source, blessed with a tenuous atmosphere and a thin layer of water over 75% of the surface. The IPCC tell us that a minute amount of extra CO2 generated by human beings living on that inert speck is the main driver of climate change. When they can’t get away with that, as recently with the advent of the highly inconvenient Pause, they assert that internal climate oscillations (PDO/AMO etc.) have scuppered (temporarily) the inevitable rise in temperatures. Only very reluctantly do they admit to some external solar influence, but this as an ADDITION to internal cycles, volcanic activity and anthro CO2 forcing, completely neglecting to make the obvious connection between solar activity and internal cycles and even volcanic activity, for which there is growing evidence.
    The geomagnetic field comes into play as the obvious moderator of solar electromagnetic forces. When it is weaker, obviously it will not be as efficient in shielding our upper atmosphere from the electrically charged solar wind and GCR particles – as distinct from solar electromagnetic radiation. Upper atmospheric chemistry and physical processes will thus vary and almost inevitably such variability must feed down into the lower atmosphere and thus the weather and climate systems. Of course, incident solar radiation in the form of light and UV also plays a huge part in upper atmospheric chemistry and physics. Small changes in spectral intensity – coincident with more general changes in solar activity (sunspots, frequency and strength of solar flares/CMEs, strength of solar magnetic field) – are proven to affect weather and climate.
    It beggars belief that IPCC consensus driven science has so effectively stifled such research for so long that we are only now just beginning to look at our planet and its relationship with our Sun in a more mature and inclusive/holistic manner.

    • The geomagnetic field comes into play as the obvious moderator of solar electromagnetic forces. When it is weaker, obviously it will not be as efficient in shielding our upper atmosphere from the electrically charged solar wind and GCR particles – as distinct from solar electromagnetic radiation.
      Several problems with this:
      1) the electromagnetic force manifests itself as plain sunlight, which is not modulated by the geomagnetic field.
      2) the solar wind is not electrically charged. It is electrically neutral
      3) you play loose with the ‘upper atmosphere’ bit. The Upper Atmosphere is not where weather and climate are.

      • Dr Svalgaard,
        “Several problems with this:
        1) the electromagnetic force manifests itself as plain sunlight, which is not modulated by the geomagnetic field.
        2) the solar wind is not electrically charged. It is electrically neutral
        3) you play loose with the ‘upper atmosphere’ bit. The Upper Atmosphere is not where weather and climate are.”
        1. This is why I made the distinction between charged particles which do interact with a magnetic field and electromagnetic radiation which of course does not. Note however that sufficiently energetic solar UV/Gamma ionises electrically neutral upper atmospheric atoms to produce more charged particles which do interact with the magnetic field, so in this narrow sense electromagnetic radiation can be said to produce electrical effects in our upper atmosphere.
        2. I pointed out this fact in another post. The solar wind is of course overall electrically neutral but it is a plasma consisting of discrete positively and negatively charged particles which interact oppositely with the geomagnetic field, as well you know. Hence the very real physical phenomena of the the Northern and Southern Lights.
        3. I refer you to Sudden Stratoshperic Warming Events (SSWs) which of course do impact significantly upon lower tropospheric weather events via interactions with the upper atmospheric Jet Stream/circumpolar vortex. Furthermore, there is considerable evidence for the significant role of solar forcing in such events, particularly Lyman Alpha flux.
        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007JD008718/pdf

  9. The paragraph on El Nino not affecting Canada, the front and rear car bumper analogy, and then going on to essentialy say how the mechanism works that actually does relate/effect canada is rather contradictory on my first reading.

  10. Many of us are grateful to Leif Svalgaard for defending tirelessly against the electric universe pseudo-science which is worse than CAGW.
    The near vacuum of space cannot transmit electrical field sufficient to affect planets.
    I am also dubious of magnetic effects except at the top of the atmosphere. But who lives there?

    • But the Sun’s magnetic field is indeed transported far out into space via the solar wind. The distinction between electrical and magnetic fields is of course artificial – they are one and the same phenomenon, i.e. electromagnetism. So in that sense the Sun might be said to have an electrical influence on the planets. Of course, the solar wind itself is overall electrically neutral, but when it meets the (electrically generated) geomagnetic field, particles of opposite charges are deflected in different directions along the field lines, thus inducing electrical currents in the upper atmosphere and even, at times, along power lines. I quote:
      “In the early 1960s, solar physicists began to realize that the solar wind carries the Sun’s magnetic field out to the far reaches of the solar system. This extension of the Sun’s magnetic field is called the interplanetary magnetic field and it can join with geomagnetic field lines originating in the polar regions of Earth. This joining of the Sun’s and Earth’s magnetic fields is called magnetic reconnection, and happens most efficiently when the two fields are anti-parallel. Through reconnection the magnetic fields of Sun and Earth become coupled together. Solar wind particles approaching Earth can enter the magnetosphere because of reconnection and then travel along the geomagnetic field lines in a corkscrew path (Figure 4–2). Positive ions and electrons follow magnetic field lines (in opposite directions) to produce what are called field-aligned currents. The solar wind and the magnetosphere form a vast electrical generator which converts the kinetic energy of solar wind particles into electrical energy. The power produced by this magnetohydrodynamic generator can exceed 10^12 watts, roughly equal to the average rate of consumption of energy in the United States today! The very complex plasmas and currents in the magnetosphere are not fully understood.

      • Your quote fails to mention ‘electromagnetism’, and in a plasma there is a very real difference between electric fields [there aren’t any] and magnetic fields [which live forever].

      • “Your quote fails to mention ‘electromagnetism’, and in a plasma there is a very real difference between electric fields [there aren’t any] and magnetic fields [which live forever]”
        I don’t believe I did fail to mention ‘electromagnetism’. Far more crucially, you assert that there aren’t any electric fields in a plasma. You must be aware of the fact that plasmas are only ‘quasi-neutral’, i.e. there are no coulomb forces operating over macro scale distances (scale dependent on the temp/density of the plasma) but there do indeed exist within the gas areas of net negative and positive charge which generate coulomb forces (electric fields) over much shorter distances.

      • In your body there are positive and negative charges with electric fields between them. What is important in a plasma is how far such fields can be felt [the Debye length]. For the ionospheric plasma, that length is of the order of one millimeter, for the solar wind about ten meters. Both being negligible compared to the length scale of phenomena taking place there.
        The power produced by this magnetohydrodynamic generator can exceed 10^12 watts
        Which it very rarely do. Even during a geomagnetic storm the ordinary sunlight falling on the Earth has power millions of times stronger.

      • I was not questioning whether such electrical fields in a plasma were able to produce measurable effects, only your unqualified assertion that they did not exist.
        The issue seems to be not whether the solar wind can generate terrestrial electrical effects via interactions with the magnetosphere but the magnitude of those effects and whether they are significant in terms of changing weather and climate.

      • Jaime Jessop November 1, 2014 at 2:44 pm
        I was not questioning whether such electrical fields in a plasma were able to produce measurable effects, only your unqualified assertion that they did not exist.
        If you were paying attention you should have seen:
        lsvalgaard October 30, 2014 at 12:12 am
        “So one way or another, there is no significant persistent large-scale electric field in a plasma (collisionless or collision dominated).”
        And in general, any and all comments are always about ‘effective’ variables: do they matter? There is no doubt that starlight from Sirius is adding to the global energy input to the climate, but one does not need to go around and stress [‘qualify’] that this contribution is negligible in every comment one makes.

  11. I think that a huge moving body of water will have a serious magnetic effect too. I have not seen any information on this anywhere, Consider the old experiment with water streaming from a tap being attracted or repelled by a charged rod. Now consider the huge currents in ocean cycles, Surely they set up and/or have large magnetic effects too? Could this be part of mechanism that actually flips the earths field?

  12. vukcevic
    October 30, 2014 at 12:53 am
    It has been noted that long term global temperature anomaly correlates to the changes in the rate of the Earth’s rotation. Now for the first time, in this paper
    This is well-known chicken-and-egg. Of course a colder earth will rotate faster since more water is held at the poles as ice nearer the rotation axis. Temp changes LOD, not the other way around. This relationship is trivial.

    • phlogiston October 30, 2014 at 3:35 am
      Temp changes LOD, not the other way around. This relationship is trivial.
      I am sure you would have looked at the article before commenting, here is a reminder what it stated there:
      “At the current state of knowledge, the most realistic alternative is the indirect solar effect, whereby a possible mechanism could be postulated along line:
      Solar activity – ocean & atmospheric temperatures – oceanic and atmospheric circulation – angular momentum exchange – Earth’s rate of rotation (LOD) – secular change in the perceived
      geomagnetic field.”
      Whether change is trivial or not it is different matter. Total change in LOD during last 150 years is of order of + or – 2.5 msec, of which + or – 0.5 msec or about 25% appear to be concurrent with the sunspot magnetic cycles (22 year periodicity). If translated to the temperature, it is clear that the changes associated with TSI (11 year periodicity) of + – 0.1C, it it could be concluded that the TSI is not the only solar contributor.

      • somehow it is no surprise that the LOD curve here does not match the one you peddle. The red curve is T corrected for AGW. I take it that you then agree with AGW being the main driver of temperature.

      • That is a totally inaccurate statement. If you read any of content of my paper
        https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01071375v2/document
        before dashing to post false assumptions, you would realise your folly. In my paper curves shown are the high frequency bandwidth sections for both the astronomic and geomagnetic inferred LOD changes. Further more you failed to realise that the JPL graph scale is inverted to one given by IERS
        The LOD data as inferred from astronomical data is clearly identified in my paper reference. Here is comparison of two curves.
        http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LOD-Jpl_Vuk.gif
        Your statements are, by great majority of the readers, taken as accurate for granted, so it would be nice if you check before you post derogatory comments.
        Thanks .

      • Large number of readers of this blog know what the LOD time line looks like, and they are not going to fall in for what is shown above by Dr. Svalgaard.
        For benefit of other readers:
        “Data Analysis
        Extracting higher frequencies (shorter periods) can be achieved by using any of the known high pass filters. However, for the convenience and benefit of the easy reproducibility, the 21 year (cantered) average is subtracted from the ‘raw ’ geomagnetic data.The obtained difference represents higher frequencies.”
        Theyare the LOD’s bidecadal : oscillations
        http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-LOD.gif
        Any one can reproduce the graph, data and method are given
        It is totally inappropriate to grossly misrepresent what is written in the paper and so mislead readers who have not found time to read paper or analyse the data.
        To go to such lengths to cover a folly, I am simply astonished !
        Perhaps implications of what I found are far greater than I assumed, else why would one risk the outstanding scientific reputation in such a manner..
        I shall not respond to any further of Dr. Svalgaard’s comments on this matter,.

      • Meant to go here:
        Circulation within the Earth’s outer the liquid is not only source of the geomagnetic field
        http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/JC.gif
        but also is by far the largest long term contributor to the change in the Earth’s rate of rotation known as LOD (more of this can be found in the paper, where I show that it follows change in the solar cycle magnetic polarity).
        There you go, now you know that there is a direct link between the Earth’s magnetic field (subject of this thread) and the Length of the Day, everyone can learn a bit here and there.

  13. Here is an illustration of why rotation speeds up if mass moves nearer the rotation axis (e.g. LOD is shorter when earth is colder with more polar ice):

    • But then you must address a few things:
      The North pole (over the Arctic ocean) & the south pole (sea ice around Antarctica) gain ice at two different times.
      And, perhaps more significantly, the change in mass must account for the freezing of floating ice above the water, but since the frozen ice floats, you are not adding mass but changing its density.
      On land around the arctic, you’d have to estimate the height of snow & ice and the latitude of that mass. So all the mass (max of 1 meter on average ?) would be added south of latitude 70.

      • Thanks for the LOD comments link
        Extract:
        DYNAMICS OF CLIMATIC AND GEOPHYSICAL INDICES
        Extract:
        “When detrended, the graphs of -LOD and dT are very similar in shape, and it is clear that -LOD runs several years ahead of dT, especially in its maxima. Shifting the -LOD curve by 6 years to the right (Figure 2.2b) results in almost complete coincidence of the corresponding maxima of the early 1870s, late 1930s, and middle of 1990s (Klyashtorin et al. 1998).
        The similarity in the dynamics of detrended -LOD and dT and ACI indices is clear: Large fragments of the curves are much alike not only in general shape, but in detail as well. In general, the long-term dynamics of both dT and -LOD have roughly a 60 year periodicity. The global climate system was reported to oscillate with a period of 65-70 years since 1850 (Schlesinger and Ramankutty 1994). The same 60-70 year periodicity has also been characteristic for the long-term dynamics of some climatic and biological indices for the last 150 years (Klyashtorin 1998).
        Similarity between the -LOD and dT dynamics makes it possible to assume the existence of some common factors inducing and controlling the observable synchrony in geophysical (LOD) and climatic (dT) indices variation.”
        My paper shows direct correlation between dLOD and solar magnetic cycle: thus the equation is:
        Global temperature dT ~ LOD, dLOD ~ solar magnetic cycle.
        No surprise about the fierce attack by totally inappropriate misrepresentation on the paper demonstrating clearly and unambiguously the second half of the equation..

      • Regardless of the inaccuracies, the main problem is that it is inappropriate to assign a sign to the sunspot number and thus fabricate an artificial 22-yr cycle.

      • it is inappropriate to assign a sign to the sunspot number…. ??!! Astonishing !
        Another attack by a further falsehood !
        Paper quote:
        “Even and odd cycles’ numbers are positive scalars, but here for purpose of clarity are plotted on the y-axis in the opposite directions.”
        http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Fig2.gif
        What kind of sign is talking about?

  14. The mass that accumulates at the poles has been thrown off’ from all over the surface. The ice skater moving her arms in to speed revolution rate analogy does not apply here in my opinion. Water molecules thrown off will lose their angular momentum energy in other ways, namely air turbulence/friction, and not ‘carry’ it to the poles to increase rotation rate of the earth on its axis. Just thinking out loud.

    • In my view during the holocene epoch, the largest single contributor to the changes in the rate of the Earth’s rotation is the Indian Ocean’s area monsoon.

  15. The proposal, for a change, fits well into the common sense experience of folks. If one imagines a ballon filled with any liquid and you but a spin on it and then you push along a latitude, you’ll have all sorts of changes in the flow(s). Varying the pushes and the latitudes makes makes even more changes. Some changes may be large enough to measure, some may be cyclical and some simply unpredictable — a loose definition of the weather as a “chaos” system. If views the Solar system as a fluid dynamics system (solar wind, the fluid nature of the Sun, the fluid nature of the atmosphere,etc.) coupled with magentic forces then the solar scientist just might make a contribution to understanding the weather.

  16. A teaspoon, just five grams, of electrons seperated from the equivalent positive charge, at a distance of 93 milliion miles from each other would have a force of approx 100 000N between them. That equates to a weight of approx 10 000Kg in earth mass ‘force’ terms, this over the distance of 93million miles! 99.999999% or more of the universe is plasma – charged particles.

  17. Arctic region is under continuous impact from geomagnetic electric current inductions
    “NASA’s fleet of THEMIS spacecraft discovered a flux rope pumping a 650,000 Amp current into the Arctic. “The satellites have found evidence for magnetic ropes connecting Earth’s upper atmosphere directly to the Sun,” says Dave Sibeck, project scientist for the mission at the Goddard Space Flight Center. “We believe that solar wind particles flow in along these ropes, providing energy for geomagnetic storms”. Even more impressive was the substorm’s power. Angelopoulos estimates the total energy of the two-hour event at five hundred thousand billion (5 x 1014) Joules. That’s approximately equivalent to the energy of a magnitude 5.5 earthquake (Dr. S equates the energy impact equivalent to M6).
    http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/203795main_FluxPower_400.jpg

    • THEMIS observations confirm for the first time that magnetic reconnection in the magnetotail triggers the onset of substorms. Substorms are the sudden violent eruptions of space weather that release solar energy trapped in the Earth’s magnetic field.

    • Hi Dr. Bell
      To change upper level wind patterns increased concentration of aerosols is required. These are often provided by the Kamchatka volcanic eruptions, which are carried into stratosphere on the plume of warm air (case of sudden stratospheric warming SSW). The particles are usually charged by friction (lightning is often seen within eruptions) and further ionised in the upper atmosphere by impact of GCR’s and possibly CME’s.
      Velocity and movement of the charged particles is affected by Arctic magnetic field which has two areas of high intensity (west of Hudson Bay and Central Siberia)
      http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NH.gif
      eventually resulting in the split of polar vortex, changing upper level wind patterns.
      http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Stv.jpg
      see also NASA animation
      http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/36000/36972/npole_gmao_200901-02.mov
      Kamchatka volcanoes and SSW link

    • “The ability to predict times of greater galactic cosmic ray (GCR) fluxes is important for reducing the hazards caused by these particles to satellite communications, aviation, or astronauts. The 11-year solar-cycle variation in cosmic rays is highly correlated with the strength of the heliospheric magnetic field. Differences in GCR flux during alternate solar cycles yield a 22-year cycle, known as the Hale Cycle, which is thought to be due to different particle drift patterns when the northern solar pole has predominantly positive (denoted as qA>0 cycle) or negative ( qA0 cycles than for qA0 and more sharply peaked for qA<0. In this study, we demonstrate that properties of the large-scale heliospheric magnetic field are different during the declining phase of the qA0 solar cycles, when the difference in GCR flux is most apparent. This suggests that particle drifts may not be the sole mechanism responsible for the Hale Cycle in GCR flux at Earth. However, we also demonstrate that these polarity-dependent heliospheric differences are evident during the space-age but are much less clear in earlier data: using geomagnetic reconstructions, we show that for the period of 1905 – 1965, alternate polarities do not give as significant a difference during the declining phase of the solar cycle. Thus we suggest that the 22-year cycle in cosmic-ray flux is at least partly the result of direct modulation by the heliospheric magnetic field and that this effect may be primarily limited to the grand solar maximum of the space-age.”
      http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014SoPh..289..407T

  18. Appreciate your interest in these matters Dr. Ball. There are indeed electric and magnetic weather effects driven by outside influences – primarily solar. They directly cause extreme weather events and natural disasters.
    For starters, in the interrum between now and when I return later today from a job to explain further, please consider the following video by Dr. Kongpop U-Yen, originally from Thailand, as an excellent demonstration of the power (and frequency) of electric weather effects: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8EE0p9kx5o

    • The video to which you refer was presented at the EU2014 All About Evidence, (Alberquerque, March 20 – 24.) Dr. Kongpop U-Yen made his presentation on the 22nd at 4:00 pm. The conference was well attended and very informative. Here the electrical nature of the solar system and the Universe as a whole was made evident. “Electricity in space is now incontrovertible.”
      I learned a great deal at this meeting. Interested parties will be well served by visiting the Thunderbolts project website (thunderbolts.info)

  19. Dr. Ball, as far as I know there is NO correlation between extinction rates and magnetic reversals. Is that a typo or do you have some evidence for that claim?

  20. Tim Ball posted ‘Magnetism and Weather: Interconnections?’

    Tim Ball,
    I think this is your best lead post yet on WUWT.
    Why? Because it asks openly and sincerely for us to wonder about nature unrestricted by the IPCC’s observationally failed theory of significant AGW from fossil fuels.
    It asks us to reprioritize research focus and funds to a broader spectrum of research ideas and away from the IPCC’s observationally failed theory of significant AGW from fossil fuels.
    To me you are tracking the central strategy that will bring trust back to climate focused science.
    John

  21. Sometimes Nature hands us a grand natural experiment that allows us to avoid getting sidetracked. One such occurred 39,000 years ago when the Earth’s magnetic field almost disappeared for several thousand years [and cosmic rays soared]. From the concentration of 18O in Greenland ice we also have a decent record of temperature and climate back then. It is clear from the record of this so-called Laschamp event:
    http://www.leif.org/research/Laschamp-event-Climate.png
    http://www.leif.org/research/Laschamp-event-Temp.png
    that even this dramatic change of the magnetic field had no discernible effect on the climate. More on the event here:
    http://www.leif.org/EOS/Laschamp-Excursion-Climate.pdf

    • “Sometimes Nature hands us a grand natural experiment that allows us to avoid getting sidetracked. One such occurred 39,000 years ago when the Earth’s magnetic field almost disappeared for several thousand years [and cosmic rays soared]”
      According to what I am reading about the Laschamp Event, it was very short lived, certainly nowhere near several thousand years. The brief full magnetic field reversal happened for just 250 years when the geomagnetic field weakebed to approx. 5% of its normal strength. Contrary to your suggestion that there were no discernible climatic effects, this paper does indeed present evidence for simultaneously occurring abrupt climatic changes during that period 9which, let us not forget, occurred within the depths of the last Ice Age). I quote:
      “Besides giving evidence for a geomagnetic field reversal 41,000 years ago, the geoscientists from Potsdam discovered numerous abrupt climate changes during the last ice age in the analysed cores from the Black Sea, as it was already known from the Greenland ice cores. This ultimately allowed a high precision synchronisation of the two data records from the Black Sea and Greenland.
      The largest volcanic eruption on the Northern hemisphere in the past 100,000 years, namely the eruption of the super volcano 39,400 years ago in the area of today’s Phlegraean Fields near Naples, Italy, is also documented within the studied sediments from the Black Sea. The ashes of this eruption, during which about 350 cubic kilometers of rock and lava were ejected, were distributed over the entire eastern Mediterranean and up to central Russia.
      These three extreme scenarios, a short and fast reversal of Earth’s magnetic field, short-term climate variability of the last ice age and the volcanic eruption in Italy, have been investigated for the first time in a single geological archive and placed in precise chronological order.”
      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121016084936.htm

      • Slight apology and correction. The “numerous abrupt climate changes during the last ice age” mentioned above are not necessarily coincident with the Laschamp Event. However, they feature significantly in general with regard to climate changes around that time as it appears that these so called Heinrich Events were not reflected in the Greenland Ice Core record. I quote:
        “It seems that large climate changes (Heinrich events) in the North Atlantic region due to a breakdown in thermohaline circulation during stadial MIS 3 did not lead to further cooling in Greenland. Considering these results, it becomes questionable if the oxygen isotope signal in Greenland during MIS3 would react sensitively to further cooling caused by high GCR fluxes during geomagnetic minima.”
        http://www.uibk.ac.at/geologie/pdf/christl.pdf
        The authors of this paper used stalagmite growth rates to chart changes in global climate and found a high correlation of growth rates with GCR flux. In particular, they point out that “speleothems did not grow during the Mono Lake, Laschamp and Jamaica event, characterized by high GCR-fluxes, indicated by the arrows in Fig.1”. Which implies that during these periods the climate was particularly cold.

      • Dr Svalgaard,
        “According to the Figures I just showed the event took at least two thousand years to play out.”
        I believe we are just choosing our definitions of the Laschamp ‘event’ rather differently. Perhaps this makes it clearer:
        “The [Laschamp] excursion is characterized by rapid transitions (less than 200 years) between stable normal polarity and a partially-reversed polarity state. The palaeointensity record is in good agreement between the two sites, revealing two prominent minima. The first minimum is associated with the Laschamp excursion at 41 ka and the second corresponds to the Mono Lake excursion at
        35.5 ka. We determine that the directional excursion during the Laschamp at this location was no longer than 400 years, occurring within a palaeointensity minimum that lasted 2000 years.”
        http://www.tc.umn.edu/~mdbourne/downloads/articles/Bourne-2013-Laschamp-preprint.pdf

      • Located in Turrialba, Costa Rica made ​​a last night its most powerful explosion 150 years, releasing a plume of gas and ash that buried among the country’s capital, San Jose, about 50 kilometers from the volcano – inform the emergency services on Thursday.
        Some people have been evacuated from the vicinity of the volcano as a precautionary measure, but there were no reports of damage or injuries. Television showed the recording, as the ash falls like snow on the backs of cows.

    • Dr. Svalgaard, have you considered possibility that your reasoning is defective?
      Annual temperature changes are far greater than the changes on longer time scales. World oceans are immense reservoirs of thermal energy and limit the annual highs and lows for about 70-75% of the globes surface.
      Climate change as dictated by the oceans, is not function of the magnetic total intensity, it is function of annual, biannual, decadal and possibly at the most bidecadal delta. This would mean that magnetic reversal (or fall in intensity) which may take few hundreds or thousand of years may not be catastrophic, unless coinciding with great geological catastrophic events, in which case earth’s MF reversal is not a culprit but simply a marker on the historic time scale.

      • I’m just showing the data. anything else is mere hand waving. What the data shows is that neither the disappearance of the Earth’s field, nor the large increase in cosmic ray intensity had any noticeable effect on the climate. Scores of various excuses can be dreamed up to explain away this fact.

      • The climate changes all the time as you can see from the plots I showed. The changes 40,000 years ago were not any different from the many changes before and after.

      • IMO it did have an effect, but naturally the effect is less during glacials, when there is so much less water vapor in the atmosphere, especially at mid-latitudes.

    • Just a comment..
      The historical GCR record doesn’t differentiate between, Solar cosmic rays, Galactic cosmic rays or Anomalous cosmic rays. Wouldn’t more solar cosmic rays and radiation have been present during a low Earth magnetic field period? As well as GCR if present in the heliospheric neighborhood. Low and no field protection has its own set of new parameters.

  22. “The human race has survived many excursions and a few reversals already: so we are likely to come through the next one unscathed.”
    of course the human race didn’t depend on iPhones, computers and electrical grids for survival then … (just slightly kidding about the IdiotPhones )

  23. “NASA said in September 2013 that we were within 3 to 4 months of a polar magnetic reversal. They were wrong, but now a new paper says it will occur some time in the next 100 years. ”
    Um, excuse me, but NASA was talking about the solar magnetic field, not the Earth’s magnetic field. Let’s be more careful in citing evidence, please.

  24. The location of the polar vortex is that the cold air will be flowed over the Bering Strait. As we know, the polar vortex jet streams restrict the flow of cold air. When the vortex is shifted arctic air has free movement.
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_t30_nh_f00.gif
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_t10_nh_f00.gif
    Will be now decline in solar activity and the rapid growth of the GCR. This increase in ozone anomalies. Location of the vortex does not change.
    Arctic air will be guided to the southeast. When a solar activity decreases, jetstream will wave further to the south.

  25. “The vortex location is favorable for the mechanisms of solar activity influence
    on the troposphere circulation involving variations of different agents (GCR intensity, UV fluxes). In the
    periods of a strong vortex changes of the vortex intensity associated with solar activity phenomena seem to
    affect temperature contrasts in tropospheric frontal zones and the development of extratropical cyclogenesis. ”
    http://geo.phys.spbu.ru/materials_of_a_conference_2012/STP2012/Veretenenko_%20et_all_Geocosmos2012proceedings.pdf

  26. Some time ago N. Scafetta then some months later D. Evans brought to your attention results of their research, but apparently data or methods of their calculations were not fully disclosed, which was meet by strong objections.
    Now M. Vukcevic brings out result of his research, with link to the data provided, method used is disclosed in full detail, thus results are easily replicated, basic requirement of good science.
    Implication of linking global temperature variability to the solar magnetic cycles is of a vital importance for further understanding of the climate’s natural variability and the role of solar forcing.
    Some have put their scientific reputation on line by claiming that the solar forcing is an insignificant component in the natural variability; however the paper presented by M. Vukcevic smashes such declarations in one single and simple blow.
    No surprise then, that the attacks on the paper are furnished by gross misinterpretations end even worse….
    Good night to all.

    • “Some have put their scientific reputation on line by claiming that the solar forcing is an insignificant component in the natural variability”.
      In due time all this will sort itself out. It won’t be long either.
      The new paradigm is rising and the old ways of thinking will pass into history.
      The Sun causes warming, cooling, and extreme weather effects, not CO2.
      Photons, protons, and electrons cause the weather and climate to change, not CO2.

      • Fundamentals of James Clerk Maxwell’s electromagnetism are ignored and we suppose to accept half-baked ideas of “here today gone tomorrow” astrophysics practitioners.

    • Now M. Vukcevic brings out result of his research, with link to the data provided, method used is disclosed in full detail, thus results are easily replicated, basic requirement of good science.

      Well, Vuk, except for the part where you wrote the whole comment and didn’t give us links to the data provided or links to the disclosure of the methods. If you expect me to guess which of your previous links you are referring to … guess again.
      w.

  27. Tim Ball wrote:
    “I also wrote an article for John Daly’s website speaking to a possible mechanism linking solar activity with variations in weather patterns.”
    Quote:
    “Apparently, when the solar wind increases pressure on the atmospheric layers the increase causes the subtropical winds to stop or even reverse. The circumpolar vortex becomes increasingly meridional often until blocking occurs.”
    It’s the complete reverse, and the relationship is more apparent with plasma temperature/speed, with faster trade winds and lower Arctic pressure and a more zonal jet flow with a faster solar wind.
    Which is why most solar cycles have an El Nino episode at the regular minimum in the solar wind speed around one year after each sunspot minimum.
    http://snag.gy/dXp1s.jpg
    Tim Ball wrote:
    “I proposed that a major mechanism is the varying pressure of the Solar Wind on the magnetosphere, down through the layers to the atmosphere, where it causes changes in the major wind patterns.”
    The ionospheric current generators may effect things like equatorial lightning rates, but the main coupling with the solar wind is in the polar regions. With Joule heating of the upper atmosphere having strong effects on circulation, chemical destruction of ozone involving NO, and ozone creation during solar proton events involving atmospheric chlorine.
    If the solar wind strongly effects Arctic air pressure, thus effecting the jet stream latitude and zonal/meridional flow, that could then modulate the trade winds.

  28. Tim Ball
    October 30, 2014 at 6:53 am
    So, the question remains, how do you explain the changing upper level wind patterns?
    = = = = = = = = = =
    It’s a good question. I don’t have a good answer. I do think clues to a solution are to be found in the Taylor-Coutte system, originally designed to test the viscosity of fluids:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor%E2%80%93Couette_flow
    It produces zonal or meridional flow patterns, depending on the rotation speed of the cylinders. You can see one in action here:
    http://youtu.be/fUsePzlOmxw?t=26m26s
    No magnets required — just shear forces and rotation.
    Meanwhile, Australian government media blames “greenhouse gases” for the cooling circulation pattern, predicting 20 more years of global warming frosts:
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-15/severe-frosts-will-become-more-common-due-to-greenhouse-gases/5812290
    “Mr Crimp said the reason behind the change was manmade.”

  29. You make some fascinating statements about magnetism and weather. Certainly the weather predictors are inaccurate while the Farmers Almanac continues to be fairly dependable. I continue to wonder about the changing upper level wind patterns.

    • Thanks!
      Among my other projects, I write for Harris’ Old Farmer’s Almanac.
      With uncanny accuracy, I must say, even if, well, I’m saying it.

  30. Interesting article dr. Ball.
    This is all in line with what I have discovered, that variations in the magnetic field and variations in the solar wind effect ENSO.
    I have discovered which factors that are the underlining forces which drives ENSO with the help of an Artificial Neural Network. ENSO variations are caused by changes in the electromagnetic variations of the Sun and by tidal forcing.
    I am working on publishing my results in the near future which is going to explain what mechanisms there are which cause variations in ENSO.

  31. Loss of Earth’s magnetic field mean in the sufferings of death for most people due to the significant increase in ionizing radiation. Even now frequent flights by plane at an altitude of 10 km above the polar circle can cause disease. Is enough increase the GCR, which reaches the surface.

  32. “The problem is it is a crude measure, so it’s unclear how long the process takes. We know extensive extinctions occur at the same time, but other impacts are not known. Does it affect the climate? The larger question is how magnetism affects weather in general.” ~Tim Ball
    Good things begin with just a question. Thanks for the article and the remarks about the history and the people who actually live up near the poles, near the auroras.
    Magnetic fields are so boring…until they oscillate.

    • Magnetic oscillations (solar + earth) as embedded in the N. Hemisphere’s temperature anomaly (1860-2013), is the subject of another article I am currently finishing.. Again all data and the method of calculation will be fully disclosed, hence anyone inclined to do so, could replicate the result.

  33. “Paleo-cosmic-ray (PCR) records based on cosmogenic 10Be and 14C data are used to study the variations in cosmic-ray intensity and solar activity over the past 9400 years. There are four strong correlations with the motion of the Jovian planets; the probability of occurring by chance being < 10−5. They are i) the PCR periodicities at 87, 350, 510, and 710 years, which closely approximate integer multiples of half the Uranus–Neptune synodic period; ii) eight periodicities in the torques calculated to be exerted by the planets on an asymmetric tachocline that approximate the periods observed in the PCR; iii) the maxima of the long-term PCR variations are coincident with syzygy (alignment) of the four Jovian planets in 5272 and 644 BP; and iv) in the time domain, the PCR intensity decreases during the first 60 years of the ≈ 172 year Jose cycle (Jose, Astron. J. 70, 193, 1965) and increases in the remaining ≈ 112 years in association with barycentric anomalies in the distance between the Sun and the center of mass of the solar system. Furthermore, sunspot and neutron-monitor data show that three anomalous sunspot cycles (4th, 7th, and 20th) and the long sunspot minimum of 2006 – 2009 CE coincided with the first and second barycentric anomalies of the 58th and 59th Jose cycles. Phase lags between the planetary and heliospheric effects are ≤ five years. The 20 largest Grand Minima during the past 9400 years coincided with the latter half of the Jose cycle in which they occurred. These correlations are not of terrestrial origin, nor are they due to the planets’ contributing directly to the cosmic-ray modulation process in the heliosphere. Low cosmic-ray intensity (higher solar activity) occurred when Uranus and Neptune were in superior conjunction (mutual cancellation), while high intensities occurred when Uranus–Neptune were in inferior conjunction (additive effects). Many of the prominent peaks in the PCR Fourier spectrum can be explained in terms of the Jose cycle, and the occurrence of barycentric anomalies."
    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11207-014-0510-1

    • McCracken, Beer and Steinhilber are very respected scientists very often quoted by our resident solar expert Dr. Svalgaard.
      Now they moved over into pseudo-science and astrology.
      This is going to unsettle the science as we know it.

    • “Low cosmic-ray intensity (higher solar activity) occurred when Uranus and Neptune were in superior conjunction (mutual cancellation), while high intensities occurred when Uranus–Neptune were in inferior conjunction (additive effects).”
      I hope they don’t try to forecast from that, as here is more likelihood of higher activity at an inferior conjunction of U-N than a superior conjunction or a quadrature. There is no reason for a lag in the solar signal, and if I correlate to CET (and earlier written records) I don’t need to include a lag in the response either. And in most cases it is warmer than average from each inferior conjunction for several years.

    • Piers’ Oct forecast for 27-31 is amazingly similar to current conditions. He called for thundersnow in the upper Great Lakes region, which occured two days ago. He located a low pressure system over the Great Lakes, which is there now. He called for “mobile + active and getting very cold in north parts”. Anyone paying attention to the weather for the past few days knows the arctic cold blast is happening. He called for a high pressure over Maine, which is just about there right now. Once the water vapor flow setup from the Pacific matures over the SW states, it’s likely the major thunderstorms he called for will occur there.
      It’s amazing how often Piers’ end of month (30 days out) forecast periods work out, many times perfectly.
      Of course there’s the times when a forecast period [2~5 days] doesn’t work out. Two intense Forbush decreases wiped out a few of his forecast periods in Aug/Sep.
      I have learned a great deal about the whole system by observing it very closely for the last 13 months tracking his forecasts, and comparing those periods to actual weather and solar conditions, and lunar motion, and if I were to start in on that here, well, let’s just say there’s is too much to talk about, and it’s difficult to express all that goes on without the aid of a lot of graphics and various indices, so that’s why my review is set in video format to be released when it’s done. That work is separate from my other research, but related.
      His forecasts are inexpensive, comparable to buying a magazine once a month.
      If you were a parent wondering a month ago what the weather for Halloween would be like today for your children, you’d have been forewarned by Piers’ forecast.

      • “If you were a parent wondering a month ago what the weather for Halloween would be like today for your children, you’d have been forewarned by Piers’ forecast.”
        What about the parents booking their summer holidays that were promised the hottest August in 300 years, when it turned out to be the coolest for 20 years. I used an empirically based method and plotted the warmest periods this UK summer to be from July 21/22 into early August, and most of September, and with the coolest period from mid August.
        “Of course there’s the times when a forecast period [2~5 days] doesn’t work out. Two intense Forbush decreases wiped out a few of his forecast periods in Aug/Sep.”
        That doesn’t make sense, August went colder than normal in the second half when the solar wind speed dropped:
        http://snag.gy/UmlPq.jpg

  34. “This is achieved if you consider the atmosphere as a bellows that expands and contracts with increasing and decreasing Solar wind pressure. It creates a push-pull effect that causes the weaker tropical winds to stop or reverse and the much stronger Jet Stream to switch between low amplitude Zonal Flow and high amplitude Meridional Flow.”
    Dr. Tim,
    The solar wind does not reach the troposphere where all weather phenomena happen. It reaches the ionosphere at 85 km altitude. Even if it reaches the tropopause, the solar wind pressure is 0.000000006 pascal. The air pressure at tropopause is 10,000 pascal. It’s like a fly landing on the back of an elephant and expecting the elephant to stoop down because of the weight.

  35. I’m not so sure that if Earth’s magnetic field were to reverse, giving us a zero or near-zero field strength, and massive incoming radiation from space – that we’re prepared for such an event… Earth’s magnetic field is declining at a much faster rate today than even 50 years ago. I mean that should be one of the most important issues being discussed right now at the UN.

  36. Dear heavens, not this nonsense about Piers Corbyn again. The man rarely gives falsifiable forecasts, so yes, his claims are rarely disproven. After repeatedly boasting that the bookies in London were afraid to bet with him, and after asking people to bet with him about the opening of the Olympics, he flat-out refused to bet with me regarding the weather at the opening of the Olympic games.
    Not only that, in the past he predicted a 50% chance of typhoons in a given area, and then claimed the prediction was a success when there were no typhoons … and he predicted sunny in Colorado and wildfires in Arizona, and then claimed a 100% success when there were wildfires in Colorado. And when you do that, sure, you look like a big winner.
    Dr. Tim says:

    Piers Corbyn survives in the marketplace, where, if he were consistently wrong he would be out of business.

    Yes, and there are dozens of astrologers out there who survive in the marketplace in exactly the same way. They make their predictions so vague that they can be claimed as successes most of the time.
    See the WUWT posts Putting Piers Corbyn to the Test, including my comment here, and the post Willis on why Piers Corbyn claims such a high success rate before you go extolling Piers’ virtues … he’s the undisputed king of the unfalsifiable “prediction”. Nostradamus would be proud.
    Please be clear that I don’t think Piers is a charlatan. I think he actually believes what he’s saying … he just doesn’t believe it enough to bet against me.
    w.
    PS–Here’s a comment from a professional forecaster from one of the previous threads:

    Pertinax July 6, 2012 at 12:12 pm
    I have to agree with Willis, particularly as he ‘stole’ nearly every salient point I intended to make here already! 🙂 🙂 🙂
    I am a professional meteorologist responsible for forecasting operational threats to the electrical transmission and distribution system of a large eastern US energy company. Spring of 2011 I read several positive comments regarding Piers’ forecasts and thought that I would evaluate them (his US forecasts) for a year. My evaluation was done subjectively, noting on a calendar the various notable threats in Piers’ forecasts that could impact to our area and subsequently noting if they provided any useful signal of upcoming threats to our system.
    Apart from his forecast for Hurricane Irene (which I would count as a decent success even though Piers’ forecasts for the remaining entirety (June – November) of the 2011 Atlantic TC season was poor), his forecasts offered no beneficial signal regarding operational threats. In the real world of operational forecasting, a forecast of “Heavy rain turning to HEAVY Snow with thunder snow” across the Upper Great Lakes, Ohio River Valley, and Blue Ridge from a low moving out of the Great Lakes into the Canadian Maritimes for day X *does not count as a successful forecast* for a heavy wet snow from the northern Mid-Atlantic through New England from a nor’easter on day X-2; that at least was a ‘close’ forecast. There were *many* forecasts for significant events that never happened, and visa versa. Again from my operational experience (for the US at least) Piers’ forecasts are at best worthless.

    Yes, I’d say “at best worthless” kinda sums up Piers’ forecasts very well.

    • Willis why don’t don’t just leave Piers alone. The purpose of my study of his work is to demonstrate graphically for myself and others whether or not Piers’ forecasts work out. Just like you, I like to find out for myself about something without taking someone else’s word for it, and that’s why I do these projects. Beleive me it’s practically a thankless job.
      But at least it hasn’t been fruitless for me, as I’ve learned something, which is the second reason I this. For all practical purposes I’ve learned much less from your megavolumes of spiteful words.
      By the way Willis, did you notice TSI during the last eclipse? http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/images/tim_level3_tsi_24hour_3month_640x480.png
      Willis did you even notice the the worldwide solar blast induced warming from AR2192?

      • Bob Weber October 31, 2014 at 12:39 pm

        Willis why don’t don’t just leave Piers alone.

        Because I dislike seeing people falling for his line of vague handwaving and believing that he actually makes falsifiable predictions. Also, he pissed me off when he very caustically and magisterially offered to bet anyone about the opening of the London Olympics, and then when I said sure, I’d bet, he wimped out. Petty, I know, but there it is.

        The purpose of my study of his work is to demonstrate graphically for myself and others whether or not Piers’ forecasts work out. Just like you, I like to find out for myself about something without taking someone else’s word for it, and that’s why I do these projects. Beleive me it’s practically a thankless job.

        So you study Piers’ forecasts and comment on them, and that’s OK. On the other hand, I try to take Piers up on a bet and he chickens out, but mentioning that is not OK. I study his forecasts and find out he claims success either way on a 50% forecast … but that’s clearly not OK …
        Seriously, why is your study of Piers’ forecasts a wonderful thing, while my study of Piers’ forecasts is a crime against nature?

        But at least it hasn’t been fruitless for me, as I’ve learned something, which is the second reason I this. For all practical purposes I’ve learned much less from your megavolumes of spiteful words.

        Will you learn more from doing an analysis yourself than from reading someone else’s analysis, whether mine or anyone else’s? Well of course, that’s the usual result. Not sure what your point is here. Did you expect that doing your own analysis would be less productive than reading about mine?

        By the way Willis, did you notice TSI during the last eclipse? http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/images/tim_level3_tsi_24hour_3month_640x480.png

        I did, and I was surprised by how small it was. The drop was only about 0.2% … but I doubt that was your point.

        Willis did you even notice the the worldwide solar blast induced warming from AR2192?

        Citation? I certainly noticed the sunspot, but I’m not going to try to guess what evidence you are referring to regarding a putative “solar blast induced warming”, that’s a fool’s errand.
        w.

      • Ok Willis so he pissed you off. Get over it. Did you notice rain in CA over the past few days? Did you notice the arctic blast descending deep in the south? Piers forecasted that for the end of October.
        Record warmth in India, UK, southern and mid US, Africa, Australia for starters during AR2192’s transit across the sun as solar flux stayed high.
        Everything you ever say indicates to me Willis that you don’t pay any attention whatsoever to what happens in realtime around the world weather wise or solar activity wise. Get over yourself, would ya?!

    • Hahaha! Piers is okay.. he has a few stalkers… good luck to him! weather forecasting for the most part is all guess work everyone knows that, Willis you just look like you’re picking on someone for no reason and being a useful idiot to-boot. What? understanding the planet. Earths temperature is 15C get over it..

  37. There are too many scare stories about the imminent Earth’s magnetic poles reversals. From paleo-magnetic records strength of geomagnetic dipole is calculated.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GMF-Ds.gif
    As it can be seen the strength of the GM dipole is 20-30% stronger now than it was at the time of ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt when civilization flourished.
    According to my calculations intensity of the geo-polar magnetic field (green line) decrease has slowed down in the last 150 years. That is also case for the dipole intensity calculated by M. Korte from the Potsdam geomagnetic institute, the world’s leader in the field.

  38. ren brought up Iceland’s volcanic SO2.
    This gives a warming bump, followed by cooling in the hemisphere. This is from HiRise:

    Figure 1.
    Rows of lava cones lining the crack from which the Laki lava flow erupted in 1783-1784 in Iceland. This was the largest lava eruption for which detailed written records exist. The gases from this eruption also caused a famine that killed about 20% of the population of Iceland and cooled the climate across the entire Northern Hemisphere. The cones in this picture are about 10 meters tall (30 feet).

    Yet the Cannabis Generation continues to attack coal, oil, combustion of any kind, and agriculture. This is really bad timing to force 1% solutions on people who do not know any better because they are miseducated and gullible. I remind readers that renewables only provide less than 1% of our needed power (not counting hydro, which activists hate and oppose), despite billions spent on their use. Likewise, organic agriculture only provides 1% of our food supply. The reason for this is that organic ag is extremely unreliable and ineffective.
    Yet the Cannabis Generation continues to believe that throwing Bill Gates billions at the problems, and forcing people to buy into their personal investments in expensive and worthless replacements, will be a positive “change.” Look at the potential cooling and look at the banning of agricultural methods and coal at this time. It is just horrible timing to let the Cannabis Generation have their way. Just say no to them. And remember, eat a little wheat gluten every day, with milk, hamburger, non-nematode-eaten potatoes, and an orange shipped in two days flat from Florida in a refrigerated 48′ trailer.

  39. Indeed, the magnetosphere undergoes quite evident distortions much like pushing on a balloon during solar impact events throughout the solar-cycles, both weak and strong 11 year maximums. The impacts and interactions felt further down (ionosphere layers, mesosphere, stratosphere, troposphere, planet core) of these distortions are not understood.
    we’ll never have the ability to measure the electromagnetic forces within a cubed meter of air, so measuring the forces at all wavelengths (E & H fields) within the magnetospheric bounds becomes subjective…

  40. Reblogged this on Globalcooler's Weblog and commented:
    Besides the respect that I have for Tim Ball’s abilities and understanding of our climate, this piece puts together the mechanisms that I am convinced control our climate and weather. Thanks to Albert Jacobs of the Friends of science for sending this to me. And thanks to others like Piers Corbyn who has made a life out of analyzing the effects of solar/Earth magnetic interactions, the late Timo Niroma who analyzed the solar sunspot cycles and their effect on our planet, as well as Will Alexander who predicted the solar effect on rainfall/drought in Africa. And not to forget Oliver Manual who first showed me how the Sun was not a stable star but was often “an insolent child”. There were others who have made significant impacts on my understanding of the solar /climate/ Earth relationship where Paul Vaughn was particularly astute. Paul’s charts have been a source of confusion, generally followed by a breakthrough in awareness of the total effect of the whole system. This is a great piece worthy of a careful read.

    • Salvatore, your claim that there is much evidence out there that suggests that magnetism affects climate would be helped greatly by few links to such evidence itself. Not to the press release. Not to the Scientific American article on the subject. Links to the evidence.
      Many thanks,
      w.

  41. I wonder how the recent discovery of proof of Higgs Field affects this ?
    The discovery of the Boson Particle is proof that the predicted Higgs Field does exist, and it may well constitute much of the so called missing “dark matter” of the universe. It isn’t just the Boson, or the Higgs Field itself, but how this invisible “plasma” if you like, can make interplanetary connections which could affect space weather and hence cause effects of the atmospheric system here on Earth.
    What is Higgs Field (Fermilab short explanation)
    http://www.fnal.gov/pub/science/inquiring/questions/higgs_boson.html

    • If that’s your best shot, it’s time to retire from the field. That says things like:

      Evidence for correlations, which invoke Milankovic forcing in the core, either directly or through changes in ice distribution and moments of inertia of the Earth, is still tenuous. Correlation between decadal changes in amplitude of geomagnetic variations of external origin, solar irradiance and global temperature is stronger. It suggests that solar irradiance could have been a major forcing function of climate until the mid-1980s, when “anomalous” warming becomes apparent.

      I see … in modern times when we have good data they can’t find the signal, but a hundred and thirty years ago they claim it might exist. Their main conclusion?

      No forcing factor, be it changes in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere or changes in cosmic ray flux modulated by solar activity and geomagnetism, or possibly other factors, can at present be neglected or shown to be the overwhelming single driver of climate change in past centuries. Intensive data acquisition is required to further probe indications that the Earth’s and Sun’s magnetic fields may have significant bearing on climate change at certain time scales.

      Truly, Salvatore, you should read these things very critically before linking to them. You are not doing your reputation any good to post this kind of vague handwaving. Yes, as they say, magnetic fields MAY have significant bearing on climate. On the other hand, I MAY win the lottery this week. So what?
      w.

      • Is this not how science works? People do research which points to the possibility of x being a possibility and others do further research which either reinforces hypothesis x or tends to contradict it? In this case we have many studies which suggest, and present ‘evidence’ for – the quality of which will no doubt vary – a significant role for geomagnetism/solar activity in climate variability. None of them ‘prove’ the case definitively. However, in order to disprove the case definitively, one must in turn cite research which unarguably debunks x in favour of an alternative hypothesis y, say, or even just rules out x without suggesting an alternative. Are there any papers out there which conclusively DISPROVE a link between climate and geomagnetic/solar activity? If so, they should be presented on this thread by the sceptics of this hypothesis. Meanwhile, tentative evidence mounts to suggest that climate/weather is indeed forced by geomagnetic/solar variability.
        Only an abstract I’m afraid:
        “The results do not rule out the possibility that geomagnetic field variations which modulate the cosmic ray flux could have played a major role in climate change in addition to previously induced by solar radiation.”
        http://link.springer.com/article/10.1134%2FS0016793212080063
        This paper suggests that solar activity impacts upon geomagnetic activity.
        “Studies of the Quaternary climate record indicate changes towards cooler and locally dryer conditions in conjunction with geomagnetic intensity lows, geomagnetic reversals, and lows in solar magnetic activity. . . .
        Geomagnetic reversals and low-geomagnetic-intensity events seem to occur in phase with the orbital 100 ka eccentricity cycle and a 100 ka solar magnetic activity cycle.”
        http://www.geosci.sfsu.edu/Geosciences/classes/gm700/PDF_Files/DaveGgeomag.pdf

      • Jaime Jessop November 4, 2014 at 10:04 am

        Is this not how science works? People do research which points to the possibility of x being a possibility and others do further research which either reinforces hypothesis x or tends to contradict it?

        Depends. If the “possibility of x” is only suggested by paleo data and not supported by modern data, as in this case, it’s not how science works. Science in that case would look at the modern data and say something like “x is extremely unlikely, since there is no sign of the effect in more accurate modern data, although some paleo data seems to support it”. However, modern science seems to be all about “publish no matter what”, and so we see nonsense like that paper, full to the brim with “might” and “could” and “may” and “possiblity” … sorry, not science.
        You go on to say that:

        Meanwhile, tentative evidence mounts to suggest that climate/weather is indeed forced by geomagnetic/solar variability.
        Only an abstract I’m afraid:
        “The results do not rule out the possibility that geomagnetic field variations which modulate the cosmic ray flux could have played a major role in climate change in addition to previously induced by solar radiation.”

        “Tentative evidence”? First, people have been looking at this question for decades. The fact that at this point all you can produce is “tentative evidence” should tell you something about whether we’re looking at science or wishful thinking.
        Next, what is “tentative evidence” when it’s at home? Was the dataset found abandoned by the roadside, with no provenance? Does it provide evidence for both sides?
        In addition, even the paper doesn’t present evidence in favor of the geomagnetism-weather connection. The best the authors can say is that they “do not rule out the possibility” that there is such a connection.
        The problem, Jaime, is that in science there is rarely anything that can “rule out the possibility” of just about any result. For example, it is indeed possible that all of the coffee in my cup will suddenly and spontaneously jump out of the cup. So finding something that “does not rule out the possibility” of spontaneous coffee levitation is meaningless.
        For a more relevant example, I’ve looked at dozens and dozens of surface weather-related datasets, and found no sign of the purported 11-year sunspot related cycle. Does this “rule out the possibility” that such a cycle exists?
        Of course not … but that’s because there is literally nothing that can rule out that possibility. I could look at 9,999 datasets and not find it … but since I might find it in dataset 10,000, it does not rule out the possibility that such a cycle exists.
        So if the best a scientific study can say is that it “does not rule out the possibility” of something, it’s not a scientific study. It’s an advocacy piece … and there are literally dozens of those out there masquerading as science.
        Best regards,
        w.

        • Willis, thanks for the substantial reply.
          “Depends. If the “possibility of x” is only suggested by paleo data and not supported by modern data, as in this case, it’s not how science works.”
          In my experience, paleo data and modern data are frequently two very different creatures which often cannot be easily compared one to the other. The relatively highly accurate modern instrumental record and the 35 year old satellite record, with associated very high temporal and spatial resolution can only be compared to the much less certain and generally far less chronologically resolved paleo record with caution. So we cannot with precision say this has happened now but didn’t happen in the distant past because our looking-glass into that past will never be as sharply focused as our view of the present.
          By tentative I mean to imply that it is not conclusive, but this does not preclude the possibility that the evidence as presented is of sufficiently high quality such as to merit further research.
          “In addition, even the paper doesn’t present evidence in favor of the geomagnetism-weather connection. The best the authors can say is that they “do not rule out the possibility” that there is such a connection.”
          Without reading the actual paper, which is behind a paywall, it’s difficult to assess the basis on which the authors make this statement. They may be cautiously understating the results of their own research or they may be overstating them. For example, the authors also say in the abstract:
          “The beginning and termination of the examined geomagnetic excursions can be attributed to periods of climate change.”
          Which I’m sure you’ll agree is a rather more definitive statement.

      • Jaime November 4, 2014 at 1:48 pm

        Willis, thanks for the substantial reply.

        My pleasure.

        “Depends. If the “possibility of x” is only suggested by paleo data and not supported by modern data, as in this case, it’s not how science works.”

        In my experience, paleo data and modern data are frequently two very different creatures which often cannot be easily compared one to the other. The relatively highly accurate modern instrumental record and the 35 year old satellite record, with associated very high temporal and spatial resolution can only be compared to the much less certain and generally far less chronologically resolved paleo record with caution. So we cannot with precision say this has happened now but didn’t happen in the distant past because our looking-glass into that past will never be as sharply focused as our view of the present.
        By tentative I mean to imply that it is not conclusive, but this does not preclude the possibility that the evidence as presented is of sufficiently high quality such as to merit further research.

        Jaime, when someone says that something happened regularly in the past, but doesn’t happen now, my first conclusion is that the data has serious problems of some kind. And since they said that the evidence for their case is “tenuous”, I fail to see why you are talking about evidence of “sufficiently high quality”.

        “In addition, even the paper doesn’t present evidence in favor of the geomagnetism-weather connection. The best the authors can say is that they “do not rule out the possibility” that there is such a connection.”

        Without reading the actual paper, which is behind a paywall, it’s difficult to assess the basis on which the authors make this statement. They may be cautiously understating the results of their own research or they may be overstating them.

        Oh, yeah, right, scientists are famous for understating their results … but in any case, saying that they “do not rule out the possibility” is so weak as to be meaningless. As I pointed out, nothing can “rule out the possibility”, so their statement is meaningless.

        For example, the authors also say in the abstract:
        “The beginning and termination of the examined geomagnetic excursions can be attributed to periods of climate change.”
        Which I’m sure you’ll agree is a rather more definitive statement.

        Dear heavens, you are indeed easy to cozen … the climate has been changing since the climate existed. As a result, saying that something happened during a “period of climate change” is the same as saying something occurred “during a period when there was oxygen in the atmosphere” … meaningless.
        So no, Jaime, that is not a “more definitive statement”. It is just more bafflegab, the same as the claim about how something does “not rule out the possibility”.
        w.

        • “Jaime, when someone says that something happened regularly in the past, but doesn’t happen now, my first conclusion is that the data has serious problems of some kind. And since they said that the evidence for their case is “tenuous”, I fail to see why you are talking about evidence of “sufficiently high quality”.”
          We’re getting bogged down by disparate references here. To be clear, I have not said that any researcher’s evidence is ‘tenuous’ or illustrated that they should themselves think it so. No, what I am saying is that past reconstructions of climate rely upon the paleo record, obviously, and should only be compared to current climate observations with caution, especially if one is seeking to prove that a apparently happened in the past but does not happen now or indeed that b did not happen in the past but is very evident now. What I have said is that research linking magnetic fluctuations to climate is not conclusive but that this does not necessarily mean the accumulated evidence in favour of this hypothesis can be easily dismissed as tenuous or unconvincing.
          I quoted: “The beginning and termination of the examined geomagnetic excursions can be attributed to periods of climate change.”
          Which I’m sure you’ll agree is a rather more definitive statement.
          You replied: “Dear heavens, you are indeed easy to cozen … the climate has been changing since the climate existed. As a result, saying that something happened during a “period of climate change” is the same as saying something occurred “during a period when there was oxygen in the atmosphere” … meaningless.”
          Besides drawing seemingly sweeping conclusions from an abstract only, you are looking at this topic in rather artificial isolation I feel. If, as the authors suggest, geomagnetic excursions occur contemporaneously with defined fluctuations in climate (cooling) then, at the very least, this requires further investigation to see if there is indeed a physical link between the two and/or whether further observational paleo evidence reinforces the findings. When there is also a developing area of science which is suggesting viable mechanisms for solar wind/GCR-climate interactions, it seems somewhat premature to me to dismiss out of hand this research as ‘meaningless’. Contrary to rumours, Svensmark’s cloud hypothesis is not dead, just undergoing a process of more rigorous assessment and expansion upon the original, rather simplistic concept.
          But Svensmark’s cloud nucleation is just one of a number of possible mechanisms. Solar/geomagnetic field/climate interactions are far from fully understood. I quote:
          “Our understanding how much the sun and other things occurring in space effect [sic.] Earth’s climate is still in its infancy.
          Why?
          Because – as NASA explains – interactions between the sun, sources of cosmic radiation and the Earth are very complicated, and takes an interdisciplinary team of solar physicists, chemists and others to quantify what is really going on.
          Indeed, scientists have been stunned in recent years by the following discoveries:
          Flares from the sun change the rate of radioactive decay of elements on Earth
          Sounds generated deep inside the Sun cause the Earth to shake and vibrate in sympathy. They have found that Earth’s magnetic field, atmosphere and terrestrial systems, all take part in this cosmic sing-along
          “Space weather” causes “spacequakes” in Earth’s geomagnetic field
          There is even some evidence that solar activity can cause earthquakes and volcanic eruptions on Earth”
          http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/05/scientists-discover-new-mechanisms-space-events-effect-earths-climate.html

    • No, you take care. That study is no better than the previous one. It claims a correspondence between a line connecting the minima of the aa index with a decadal estimate of the global temperature from Parker and Jones … that’s your evidence? To start with, connecting the minima is about the worst kind of smoothing I can imagine. Then comparing that to a decadal boxcar average? Seriously?
      ‘Fraid you’ll have to do much better than that, Salvatore.
      w.

  42. Willis I think the same about your studies so we will never get any where on this subject. I believe in those studies and not yours and you believe in your studies and not these. You will not convince me and I will not convince you.

  43. Salvatore Del Prete November 4, 2014 at 1:00 pm Edit

    Willis I think the same about your studies so we will never get any where on this subject. I believe in those studies and not yours and you believe in your studies and not these. You will not convince me and I will not convince you.

    Belief? What on earth does belief have to do with science? I see the problem now. I’m looking at facts—observations, statistical analyses, types of averaging done, provenance of the dataset … and you are rambling on about “belief”, without providing one single response to the problems that I’ve pointed out in your cited studies.
    Belief?!?
    Spare me from believers …
    w.

  44. Belief? What on earth does belief have to do with science? I see the problem now. I’m looking at facts—observations, statistical analyses, types of averaging done, provenance of the dataset … and you are rambling on about “belief”, without providing one single response to the problems that I’ve pointed out in your cited studies.
    MY RESPONSE
    I am looking at sources with facts, statistical analysis ,types of averaging etc., the reality is you choose not to believe those sources and I do.
    You instead have created your own studies and have drawn your conclusions based on those studies.
    Many in this field as you know from the recent climate summit agree with my stance, maybe wrong maybe right but I have a lot of company in my camp.

    • Salvatore Del Prete November 5, 2014 at 7:53 am

      … I am looking at sources with facts, statistical analysis ,types of averaging etc., the reality is you choose not to believe those sources and I do.

      Not true. The reality is that I have analyzed those studies, using standard scientific methods, and found them wanting. Each time I’ve done so you’ve had an opportunity to show that my analysis is wrong. That would be the scientific method … but you’ve never done that. Instead, you prattle on about what you believe, as if belief made any difference.

      You instead have created your own studies and have drawn your conclusions based on those studies.

      It’s true. In addition to studying the work of others, I’ve done my own research … this is now a point against me?

      Many in this field as you know from the recent climate summit agree with my stance, maybe wrong maybe right but I have a lot of company in my camp.

      Gosh, yes. You have the 97% solar consensus … thankfully, science is not an election. How is that suddenly you are a fan of the “consensus” argument?
      w.

  45. Jaime November 5, 2014 at 1:37 am

    “Jaime, when someone says that something happened regularly in the past, but doesn’t happen now, my first conclusion is that the data has serious problems of some kind. And since they said that the evidence for their case is “tenuous”, I fail to see why you are talking about evidence of “sufficiently high quality”.”

    We’re getting bogged down by disparate references here. To be clear, I have not said that any researcher’s evidence is ‘tenuous’ or illustrated that they should themselves think it so.

    Say what? The authors themselves said that their evidence was “tenuous”, as I quoted above:

    Evidence for correlations, which invoke Milankovic forcing in the core, either directly or through changes in ice distribution and moments of inertia of the Earth, is still tenuous

    Given that, what evidence are you talking about that is of “sufficiently high quality”?
    You go on to say:

    No, what I am saying is that past reconstructions of climate rely upon the paleo record, obviously, and should only be compared to current climate observations with caution, especially if one is seeking to prove that a apparently happened in the past but does not happen now or indeed that b did not happen in the past but is very evident now. What I have said is that research linking magnetic fluctuations to climate is not conclusive but that this does not necessarily mean the accumulated evidence in favour of this hypothesis can be easily dismissed as tenuous or unconvincing.

    You seem to think that I’m the one saying that the evidence is “tenuous”, whereas that was the conclusion of the authors that YOU CITED!
    w.

    • Er, no Willis, I did not cite this paper, Salvatore did. Furthermore, I am not trying to convince yourself or anybody else on this blog that there is evidence for “Milankovich forcing in the core, either directly or through changes in ice distribution and moments of inertia of the Earth.” That was not the thrust of my argument at all. But as you quoted this paper cited by Salvatore, the very next sentences say:
      “Correlation between decadal changes in amplitude of geomagnetic variations of external origin, solar irradiance and global temperature is stronger. It suggests that solar irradiance could have been a major forcing function of climate until the mid-1980s, when “anomalous”warming becomes apparent.”
      This is the argument I was putting forward, bar the correlation with post 1985 warming which the authors identify as “anomalous”.

      • Jaime Jessop November 5, 2014 at 9:20 am

        Er, no Willis, I did not cite this paper, Salvatore did.

        OK, my bad. Please change my last sentence to

        You seem to think that I’m the one saying that the evidence is “tenuous”, whereas that was the conclusion of the authors that YOU ARE DISCUSSING!

        However, my main point still stands. The authors say:

        “Correlation between decadal changes in amplitude of geomagnetic variations of external origin, solar irradiance and global temperature is stronger. It suggests that solar irradiance could have been a major forcing function of climate until the mid-1980s, when “anomalous”warming becomes apparent.”

        So the evidence is “stronger” than tenuous evidence … wow, that’s impressive. It “suggests” something, once again, that’s impressive. And it disappears in 1980 … also impressive.
        However, when you look at the paper, the authors are not talking about “Correlation between decadal changes in amplitude of geomagnetic variations of external origin, solar irradiance and global temperature”. That’s just there to deceive the masses, and successfully, it seems. But in fact they are talking about correlation between PROXIES for geomagnetic variations, PROXIES for solar irradiation, and PROXIES for global temperature.
        As a result, their final conclusion is as weak as American beer. They finish by saying that there are:

        … indications that the Earth’s and Sun’s magnetic fields may have significant bearing on climate change …

        “Indications”? “may have significant bearing”???
        Perhaps that impresses you, perhaps you mistake that for science … me, not so much. It’s just another example of the “publish or perish” problem, a paper that wanders around and eventually says nothing. Everything is wrapped up in so many “indications” and “might” and “suggestions” and “could affect” and the like that at the end of the day, there is nothing of substance there at all.
        w.

        • Deary me, so we’re taking one comment from the authors of just one paper which I did not cite, in relation to a topic which I am not discussing, to criticize my argument by saying “that was the conclusion of the authors that YOU ARE DISCUSSING!”
          “But in fact they are talking about correlation between PROXIES for geomagnetic variations, PROXIES for solar irradiation, and PROXIES for global temperature.”
          Please do enlighten me as to whether there exist ways to directly measure such variability before the advent of instrumentation.
          But we do seem to be bickering now, which is not constructive and probably not a worthwhile use of both of our times. Thanks for the main discussion though.

  46. Jaime November 5, 2014 at 1:37 am

    … Besides drawing seemingly sweeping conclusions from an abstract only, you are looking at this topic in rather artificial isolation I feel. If, as the authors suggest, geomagnetic excursions occur contemporaneously with defined fluctuations in climate (cooling) then, at the very least, this requires further investigation to see if there is indeed a physical link between the two and/or whether further observational paleo evidence reinforces the findings.

    Good heavens, I’ve been doing nothing but that with my investigations of the claimed existence of the 11-year cycle. In fact, I’ve found no evidence at all to support that hypothesis. So you are standing on the sidelines and saying “this requires further investigation”, and I’m one of the poor shlubs actually DOING the investigation, and finding nothing.
    Jaime, I’ve invited you along with everyone else to point me to the definitive dataset, the one where we can actually find the evidence of your long-rumored connection between some sunspot-related phenomenon (TSI, solar wind, GCRs, etc) and some surface weather dataset.
    To date, nobody has come up with one that stands up to simple statistical significance analysis.
    Now, this makes no difference to the true believers, of course. But I had though you were a fan of the scientific method … just how many negative results will it take for you to admit that simple fact, and consider what it might mean?
    w.

    • Willis, if you are asking me to point you in the direction of a definitive dataset, I have already stated that the evidence for solar/GCR/geomagnetic related forcing of climate/weather is not conclusive, though by no means insubstantial. I am a ‘fan’ as you say of the scientific method and I am quite open to being convinced of the absolute fact that there is no merit whatsoever to any of the numerous studies which identify a supposedly statistically significant correlation between solar activity and climate. If such is the case, i am sure that you (and others) will be writing to the authors and publishers of said papers very soon to demonstrate their error and either have them amended or retracted. But that’s only half the story. The other half is the numerous papers which postulate viable mechanisms whereby this ‘statistically significant’ correlation (or not, as the case may be) might be physically realised.

    • Willis, I’ve only skimmed through the comments, so I wanted to confirm – you’re findings suggest that solar output remains constant? And you’re skeptical that solar output influences the Earth?

      • See, J, this is why I insist that people don’t try to summarize or interpret what I said, but that instead they QUOTE MY WORDS. Given that you appear either too dense or too refractory to do that one simple thing that I clearly requested in the head post, I fear your comment goes straight into my garbage can.
        w.

    • Jaime November 5, 2014 at 9:38 am Edit

      Willis, if you are asking me to point you in the direction of a definitive dataset, I have already stated that the evidence for solar/GCR/geomagnetic related forcing of climate/weather is not conclusive, though by no means insubstantial.

      Since you are unwilling to point to a single dataset, I fear I don’t understand why you think the evidence is “not conclusive”. That implies that it is substantial and solid but not solid enough … however, you can’t name a single dataset to back that up.
      Sorry, Jaime, but I believe in evidence, not some claim from some random anonymous internet poster that he thinks the evidence is “substantial” but can’t or won’t point to a single dataset to back up that claim.
      w.

      • “Sorry, Jaime, but I believe in evidence, not some claim from some random anonymous internet poster that he thinks the evidence is “substantial” but can’t or won’t point to a single dataset to back up that claim.”
        You clearly are bewitched by this conviction that there is no evidence on this issue, only hearsay. What can I say, other than that I wish you well in your crusade against ‘bad science’ and its ill-informed advocates and recommend that you take just a little more care with your assumptions about the people you are debating with!

  47. Not true. The reality is that I have analyzed those studies, using standard scientific methods, and found them wanting
    My reply to Willis.
    First of all the data you have presented leaves much to be desired in my opinion. I think it is very confusing and inaccurate when all is said and done which results in it not being able to prove anything to many of us in this field. ..
    Secondly I have presented to you many papers with data that show everything counter to what you try to show. You are the one who chooses not to believe in them or say the papers are not good enough for you.
    That is your opinion which is fine but it is ONLY your opinion.
    You think you are correct . I think you are not correct. .

    • Secondly I have presented to you many papers with data that show everything counter to what you try to show. You are the one who chooses not to believe in them or say the papers are not good enough for you.

      I have specified the problems with the few (not many but few) papers you recommended. If you think I was wrong in any of those problems, please QUOTE MY WORDS and tell me where you think I was wrong.
      Waving your hands and saying “many papers” does nothing to forward the discussion. I have no clue which papers you are referring to, or why you disagreed with me but said nothing about my analysis.
      However, this is all too common for you, so I guess I should not be surprised … for example, you say:

      First of all the data you have presented leaves much to be desired in my opinion.

      No citation, no quotation, so NOBODY (including myself) has any clue what you are babbling about.
      I give up, Salvatore. I’ve asked you over and over again to CITE and to QUOTE what you are talking about. Your latest comment shows that I’m having absolutely no effect.
      I’ll pass on your further comments, thanks.
      w.

  48. http://www.pnas.org/content/109/16/5967.full
    Here is another study which you Willis will say is not correct. I can give you 100’s of these and you will have the same commentary and opinion. This is because you don not believe in what the papers are saying due to your studies which is fine but this does not mean these are not correct while you are.
    If it were that clear cut you would be famous in the field of climatology by now and would be THE person everyone would go to. Which we know is just not so.

  49. .
    However, this is all too common for you, so I guess I should not be surprised … for example, you say:
    No citation, no quotation, so NOBODY (including myself) has any clue what you are babbling about.
    I give up, Salvatore. I’ve asked you over and over again to CITE and to QUOTE what you are talking about. Your latest comment shows that I’m having absolutely no effect.
    MY REPLY
    This is the same way I feel about you and what you have to say. You have never refuted anything I have presented. If anything you convince me more then ever that my stance is correct. Thanks for that.

Comments are closed.