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.

5 3 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

190 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bob Weber
October 30, 2014 7:22 am

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

John Manville
Reply to  Bob Weber
October 30, 2014 10:39 am

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)

October 30, 2014 7:24 am

Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
This was very interesting and something I had not considered before, even with my electrical background!

October 30, 2014 7:42 am

Reblogged this on climatecontrarian and commented:
Post on WUWT by Dr Tim Ball on the possible effects upon weather and climate of the Sun’s magnetic field and the interaction with Earth’s own magnetic field.

Robert W Turner
October 30, 2014 8:27 am

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?

October 30, 2014 9:18 am

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

October 30, 2014 9:35 am

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

Jaime Jessop
Reply to  lsvalgaard
October 30, 2014 10:16 am

“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

Reply to  Jaime Jessop
October 30, 2014 11:18 am

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.

Reply to  Jaime Jessop
October 30, 2014 11:19 am

According to the Figures I just showed the event took at least two thousand years to play out.

Reply to  Jaime Jessop
October 30, 2014 12:25 pm

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

ren
Reply to  Jaime Jessop
October 30, 2014 3:17 pm

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.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
October 30, 2014 10:22 am

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.

Reply to  vukcevic
October 30, 2014 11:17 am

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.

Catherine Ronconi
Reply to  lsvalgaard
October 30, 2014 11:29 am

But the climate did change dramatically around 40,000 years ago. That’s about the time that modern humans spread into Europe via the Balkans, for instance. This shows D/O (a Dane and a Swiss) events
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dansgaard%E2%80%93Oeschger_event#mediaviewer/File:Grip-ngrip-do18-closeup.png

Reply to  Catherine Ronconi
October 30, 2014 11:31 am

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.

Catherine Ronconi
Reply to  Catherine Ronconi
October 30, 2014 12:22 pm

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.

Carla
Reply to  lsvalgaard
October 30, 2014 7:27 pm

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.

JeffC
October 30, 2014 11:32 am

“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 )

October 30, 2014 12:02 pm

“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.

ren
October 30, 2014 12:46 pm

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.

ren
October 30, 2014 12:59 pm

“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

October 30, 2014 2:33 pm

Magnetism as a theory? It’s attractive.

Luther Bl't
Reply to  Gareth Phillips
October 30, 2014 3:00 pm

But magnetism without electricity? That would be a unipolar world 😉

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Gareth Phillips
October 30, 2014 7:39 pm

To others it’s repulsive. I guess it depends on ones orientation. 🙂

October 30, 2014 4:56 pm

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.

Bob Weber
Reply to  vukcevic
October 30, 2014 8:45 pm

“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.

Reply to  Bob Weber
October 31, 2014 1:45 am

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

Reply to  vukcevic
October 31, 2014 11:00 am

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.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
October 31, 2014 11:55 pm

Well said Wills. I think Vuk is holding out as well, I’ve asked him for his data once to study it, he must know I will rip it apart on sight!

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
November 3, 2014 2:01 am

Link to all data is at the end of the article. Dr. S has gone through it more then once.

October 30, 2014 5:31 pm

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.

Khwarizmi
October 30, 2014 6:05 pm

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.”

October 30, 2014 7:20 pm

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.

milodonharlani
Reply to  Seidler
October 30, 2014 7:33 pm

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.

eyesonu
October 30, 2014 7:44 pm

Dr. Ball,
Excellent post and has generated excellent discussion.

October 30, 2014 10:20 pm

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.

ren
October 30, 2014 11:19 pm

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.

Zeke
October 31, 2014 12:18 am

“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.

Reply to  Zeke
October 31, 2014 1:53 am

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.

ren
October 31, 2014 1:35 am

“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

Reply to  ren
October 31, 2014 5:48 am

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.

Reply to  ren
November 1, 2014 12:20 pm

“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.

SOREN BUNDGAARD
October 31, 2014 4:10 am

Good to see Piers mentioned here again…
http://youtu.be/6R26PXRrgds

Bob Weber
Reply to  SOREN BUNDGAARD
October 31, 2014 7:12 am

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.

Reply to  Bob Weber
October 31, 2014 1:44 pm

“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

Dr. Strangelove
October 31, 2014 4:21 am

“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.

J
October 31, 2014 10:17 am

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.

Editor
October 31, 2014 10:47 am

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.

Bob Weber
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
October 31, 2014 12:39 pm

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?

Reply to  Bob Weber
November 1, 2014 2:20 am

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.

Bob Weber
Reply to  Bob Weber
November 1, 2014 8:12 am

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?!

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
October 31, 2014 11:32 pm

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..

October 31, 2014 10:50 am

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.

ren
Reply to  vukcevic
October 31, 2014 1:22 pm

June 2014 magnetic field
Measurements made over the past six months confirm the general trend of the field’s weakening, with the most dramatic declines over the Western Hemisphere.
But in other areas, such as the southern Indian Ocean, the magnetic field has strengthened since January.
The latest measurements also confirm the movement of magnetic North towards Siberia.
http://www.esa.int/var/esa/storage/images/esa_multimedia/images/2014/06/magnetic_field_changes/14582172-1-eng-GB/Magnetic_field_changes_large.jpg
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/Swarm/Swarm_reveals_Earth_s_changing_magnetism

ren
Reply to  ren
November 1, 2014 2:12 am

For example, the South Atlantic Anomaly is an area where the magnetic field is particularly weak – in fact, it is only half as strong as in Europe. This is problematic for satellites orbiting Earth, and the majority of technical faults occur when they pass through this region.
The difference in location between magnetic north and true north is called the magnetic deviation; not only is the gap getting bigger, it is shifting at an increasing rate. Prior to 1994, it was estimated that the magnetic north pole was moving at about 10 km a year, but since 2001 this has increased to around 65 km a year.
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/Swarm/Our_protective_shield

Reply to  vukcevic
October 31, 2014 11:41 pm

It’s orbital..

Verified by MonsterInsights