Comments to "and Then There's Physics"

Reposted from my comment at:  ...and Then There's Physics about "the Pause".

Oh people are putting up graphs (thinks..."now's my chance"). Here's my theory for "the pause" (aka non-statistically significant rise). I don't think we need to invoke pirates. (Incidentally, why are Pirates, Pirates? Because they Aaaaargh.)

It's caused by the AMO. What causes the AMO? Cloud variations. What causes the cloud variations? Magnetic shifts (mostly terrestrial but also solar) that alter the angle of the aurora open to glactic cosmic rays.

[..imagines the look on our hosts' face.. but continues anyway...]

We can see that the AMO pattern results in a strong SST signal (and, yes, before people mention it the AMO is derived from detrended SST's). That signal is cyclical and matches the SST trends (both northern and, surprisingly, southern hemispheres):

* the rise to 1870
* the fall 1870 to 1910
* the rise 1910 to 1940
* the fall 1940 to 1970
* the rise 1970 to 2010

These are SST's, not land temps, but as we know land temperatures are very much influenced by sea temperatures.

Notice how we are at a rough peak of the AMO? The peak may continue for a while, it may go down a bit, who knows we may be in for a bit of "global cooling"(TM) to the likely bottom of the cycle in 2030-2040. So, the pause is looking likely to last for a while yet.

An interesting aside is that we currently have a very low Arctic ice extent. Did we also have a low Arctic ice extent in the last rise/peak of the AMO in the 20's to 40's? Obviously before the satelite era, but it seems likely that we did. See (e.g.) here for a discussion on it.

What about those cloud variations I mentioned? Well here's the graph that a certain commentator here loves to attack (hiya):

And here is the AMO for that period.

..and here are the two compared in a very rough mashup - just for demonstration (note the AMO is INVERTED):

The dates fit. It's a highly plausible mechanism. Clouds --> SST's --> AMO.

What about the magnetic part I mentioned...? Well, we have the largest movement of the N-pole ever recorded, and the lowest ice extent. Gravitation shift from losing glacial ice? Possibly, but there's something else. The last N-pole shift co-incided with the last low arctic extent (1920s-40's). Why is it important where the N-pole is? Because it, (along with declination changes) changes the oval where galactic rays can enter the troposphere! Read all about it at my place.

...

Oh, forgot to mention *why* the AMO also seems to effect Southern Hemisphere SST's:

Three points in my proposed mechanism

1) The declination of the planet means that the auroral oval in high northern latitudes allow the Galactic rays to enter, seeding clouds, whose quantity varies with the "open-ness, or closed-ness" of the oval.
2) The major ocean in the NH is the Atlantic, hence the direct effect there
3) It's known that many of these galactic cosmic rays are so energetic that they can pass right through the planet. This may seed clouds "down-under" [Edit: speculative, but possible..]. And/Or global changes in cloudiness are transmitted by weather patterns, and/or ocean currents move the Atlantic changes to the southern hemisphere.

How changes in Earth's Magnetic Field could effect climate

Joan Feynman (yes, the sister of Richard) and Alexander Ruzmaikin   (both of NASA JPL) in a paper published long ago (2000 - before the CO2 mania hit full stride), wrote one of the most important papers regarding climate.

Abstract.
 High energy cosmic rays   may influence the formation of clouds, and thus can have an impact on weather and climate. Cosmic rays in the solar wind are incident on the magnetosphere boundary and are then transmitted through the magnetosphere and atmosphere to reach the upper troposphere.

 The flux to the troposphere will depend both on the intensity and spectrum of the cosmic rays at the outer boundary of the magnetosphere (magnetopause) and on the configuration of the magnetosphere through which they propagate. Both the incident flux and the magnetospheric transmission have changed systematically during this century due to systematic changes in the solar wind. We show that, early in the century the region of the troposphere open to cosmic ray precipitation was usually confined to a relatively small high-latitude region. As the century progressed there was a systematic increase in the size of this region by over 7". We suggest that these changes contributed to climate change during the last 100 years.

Thus changes in the magnetic field lead to changes in the size and position of the oval where cosmic rays may reach the troposphere and effect earth's climate.

When a cosmic ray particle enters  the magnetosphere its trajectory is highly influenced by the Earth’s magnetic field and the configuration of the magnetosphere. The main field of the Earth changes relatively slowly with time, but geomagnetic activity, which reflects the configuration of the magnetosphere, changes on time scales of minutes to days.

The transmission of a high energy charged proton in the Earth’s field depends on the energy of the particle and the direction from which it comes. A useful concept is the cosmic ray cutoff, i.e. the lowest latitude that a proton of a given energy will penetrate if it is vertically incident on the Earth’s field. Three regions of transmission can be distinguished.

There is a low latitude region where the field has a dipole configuration which is insensitive to solar wind conditions. The trajectory of a particle incident on this region can be calculated in a straightforward manner but only protons of very high energy will be able to penetrate to the troposphere. Since the flux of such particles is very small, effectively few cosmic rays reach the troposphere in this region.

There is also a high latitude region (the polar cap) in which the Earth’s field lines are essentially open to the solar wind and particles of all rigidities can find their way to the atmosphere.

Between these two regions is a third region in which the transmission is dependent on the rigidity of the particle and the direction of incidence at the magnetopause. The paths of these particles are very complex. The auroral oval marks the transition between the open polar cap and the closed dipolar inner magnetosphere. Changes in the position of the auroral oval will be reflected in changes in the positions at which galactic cosmic rays impinge on the troposphere. Such changes will influence cloud formation and through that mechanism, may be expected to change the weather and climate.

Have we had such a change in the position of the Earth's field lines? Perhaps a change in the position of the Magnetic North Pole?

Yes, we have. The largest change in the position of the North Pole ever recorded. That happens to co-incide almost exactly with changes in earth temperature. The theory seems to merit much further consideration.

Have there been changes in cloud cover (that cosmic rays are thought to seed)?

Yes, we have. Note that the red line is earth temperature (Hadcrut 3), and that it's scale is inverted. More clouds = cooler. Less clouds = warmer.

The paper is here.

New Study: Magnetic field as important as CO2

From:
Earth's magnetic field is important for climate change at high altitudes

New research, published this week, has provided scientists with greater insight into the climatic changes happening in the upper atmosphere. Scientists found that changes in the Earth's magnetic field are more relevant for climatic changes in the upper atmosphere (about 100-500 km above the surface) than previously thought. Understanding the cause of long-term change in this area helps scientists to predict what will happen in the future. This has key implications for life back on earth.

A good understanding of the long-term behaviour of the upper atmosphere is essential; it affects a lot of satellite-based technology, such as global navigation systems and high-frequency radio communication systems. Some satellites even operate within the upper atmosphere itself.
The increase in atmospheric CO₂ concentration has been thought to be the main cause of climatic changes at these high altitudes. This study suggests that magnetic field changes that have taken place over the past century are as important.

Both increasing levels of CO₂ and changes in the Earth's magnetic field affect the upper atmosphere, including its charged portion, also known as the ionosphere. Dr. Ingrid Cnossen from the British Antarctic Survey used computer simulations to compare the effects of these two factors over the past century.
While CO₂ causes heat to be trapped in the lower atmosphere, it actually cools the upper atmosphere. The simulations show that the increase in CO₂ concentration over the past 100 years has caused the upper atmosphere, at around 300 km altitude, to cool by around 8 degrees. At the same altitude, changes in the Earth's magnetic field caused a similar amount of cooling over parts of North America, but caused a warming over other parts of the world, with the strongest warming, of up to 12 degrees, located over Antarctica.
Dr. Ingrid Cnossen said: "Computer simulations are a very important tool in understanding the causes of climate change at high altitudes. We still can't explain all of the long-term trends that have been observed, but it helps that we now know how important the magnetic field is."
The new simulations also indicate that rising CO₂ levels have caused the densest part of the ionosphere to lower by about 5 km globally. Changes in the Earth's magnetic field can cause much larger changes, but they are very dependent on location and can be either positive or negative; over the southern Atlantic Ocean a decrease in height of up to 50 km was found, while an increase in height of up to 20 km was found over western Africa.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-05-earth-magnetic-field-important-climate.html#jCp

Both increasing levels of CO₂ and changes in the Earth's magnetic field affect the upper atmosphere, including its charged portion, also known as the ionosphere. Dr. Ingrid Cnossen from the British Antarctic Survey used computer simulations to compare the effects of these two factors over the past century.
While CO₂ causes heat to be trapped in the lower atmosphere, it actually cools the upper atmosphere. The simulations show that the increase in CO₂ concentration over the past 100 years has caused the upper atmosphere, at around 300 km altitude, to cool by around 8 degrees. At the same altitude, changes in the Earth's magnetic field caused a similar amount of cooling over parts of North America, but caused a warming over other parts of the world, with the strongest warming, of up to 12 degrees, located over Antarctica.
Dr. Ingrid Cnossen said: "Computer simulations are a very important tool in understanding the causes of climate change at high altitudes. We still can't explain all of the long-term trends that have been observed, but it helps that we now know how important the magnetic field is."
The new simulations also indicate that rising CO₂ levels have caused the densest part of the ionosphere to lower by about 5 km globally. Changes in the Earth's magnetic field can cause much larger changes, but they are very dependent on location and can be either positive or negative; over the southern Atlantic Ocean a decrease in height of up to 50 km was found, while an increase in height of up to 20 km was found over western Africa.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-05-earth-magnetic-field-important-climate.html#jCp

 Both increasing levels of CO2 and changes in the Earth's magnetic field affect the upper atmosphere, including its charged portion, also known as the ionosphere. Dr. Ingrid Cnossen from the British Antarctic Survey used computer simulations to compare the effects of these two factors over the past century.

While CO2 causes heat to be trapped in the lower atmosphere, it actually cools the upper atmosphere. The simulations show that the increase in CO2 concentration over the past 100 years has caused the upper atmosphere, at around 300 km altitude, to cool by around 8 degrees. At the same altitude, changes in the Earth's magnetic field caused a similar amount of cooling over parts of North America, but caused a warming over other parts of the world, with the strongest warming, of up to 12 degrees, located over Antarctica.

Dr. Ingrid Cnossen said: "Computer simulations are a very important tool in understanding the causes of climate change at high altitudes. We still can't explain all of the long-term trends that have been observed, but it helps that we now know how important the magnetic field is."

The new simulations also indicate that rising CO2 levels have caused the densest part of the ionosphere to lower by about 5 km globally. Changes in the Earth's magnetic field can cause much larger changes, but they are very dependent on location and can be either positive or negative; over the southern Atlantic Ocean a decrease in height of up to 50 km was found, while an increase in height of up to 20 km was found over western Africa.

Both increasing levels of CO₂ and changes in the Earth's magnetic field affect the upper atmosphere, including its charged portion, also known as the ionosphere. Dr. Ingrid Cnossen from the British Antarctic Survey used computer simulations to compare the effects of these two factors over the past century.
While CO₂ causes heat to be trapped in the lower atmosphere, it actually cools the upper atmosphere. The simulations show that the increase in CO₂ concentration over the past 100 years has caused the upper atmosphere, at around 300 km altitude, to cool by around 8 degrees. At the same altitude, changes in the Earth's magnetic field caused a similar amount of cooling over parts of North America, but caused a warming over other parts of the world, with the strongest warming, of up to 12 degrees, located over Antarctica.
Dr. Ingrid Cnossen said: "Computer simulations are a very important tool in understanding the causes of climate change at high altitudes. We still can't explain all of the long-term trends that have been observed, but it helps that we now know how important the magnetic field is."
The new simulations also indicate that rising CO₂ levels have caused the densest part of the ionosphere to lower by about 5 km globally. Changes in the Earth's magnetic field can cause much larger changes, but they are very dependent on location and can be either positive or negative; over the southern Atlantic Ocean a decrease in height of up to 50 km was found, while an increase in height of up to 20 km was found over western Africa.


Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-05-earth-magnetic-field-important-climate.html#jCp

 

Both increasing levels of CO₂ and changes in the Earth's magnetic field affect the upper atmosphere, including its charged portion, also known as the ionosphere. Dr. Ingrid Cnossen from the British Antarctic Survey used computer simulations to compare the effects of these two factors over the past century.
While CO₂ causes heat to be trapped in the lower atmosphere, it actually cools the upper atmosphere. The simulations show that the increase in CO₂ concentration over the past 100 years has caused the upper atmosphere, at around 300 km altitude, to cool by around 8 degrees. At the same altitude, changes in the Earth's magnetic field caused a similar amount of cooling over parts of North America, but caused a warming over other parts of the world, with the strongest warming, of up to 12 degrees, located over Antarctica.


Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-05-earth-magnetic-field-important-climate.html#jCp

Both increasing levels of CO₂ and changes in the Earth's magnetic field affect the upper atmosphere, including its charged portion, also known as the ionosphere. Dr. Ingrid Cnossen from the British Antarctic Survey used computer simulations to compare the effects of these two factors over the past century.
While CO₂ causes heat to be trapped in the lower atmosphere, it actually cools the upper atmosphere. The simulations show that the increase in CO₂ concentration over the past 100 years has caused the upper atmosphere, at around 300 km altitude, to cool by around 8 degrees. At the same altitude, changes in the Earth's magnetic field caused a similar amount of cooling over parts of North America, but caused a warming over other parts of the world, with the strongest warming, of up to 12 degrees, located over Antarctica.


Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-05-earth-magnetic-field-important-climate.html#jCp

Is The Earth's Magnetic Field Driving Our Climate?

Let's get the money-shot out of the way, shall we? Here it is:

Fig. 1. The earth's global temperature (HadCRUT 4) - black line, plotted with the shift in the North Pole in miles - green line.

Remarkable isn't it? The data sources are here and here and here. The Gnuplot file for the plot is here in case you want to do it yourself. Our modern warm period coincides almost exactly with the largest shift in North-Pole movement that's ever been directly recorded.  

It's an incredible correlation. One that *should* set scientific minds wondering. Especially with the daily focus on, and the billions of pounds spent on, research on the causes of climate change. Yet the issue of the shift of the Magnetic North Pole (MNP) (which will be accompanied by the consequent shift of the protective magnetosphere, and other important effects) seems to be largely ignored by the climate community. For example see here:

Fig 2. A search for Magnetic North Pole brings no results from the IPCC.

They just don't want to seem to talk about it. It's not just in the IPCC that the magnetic pole correlation is being ignored. The favoured blog of many of the "in crowd" of climate change research scientists is realclimate.org. Their Data Sources page list all the 'relevant' data sources. Not one mention data on magnetic pole shift. 

Nor does it seem worthy of mention by the climate warriors at skepticalscience.com, they of the 97% consensus claim. No results for the magnetic north pole climate relationship there either:

Fig 3. No results for Magnetic North Pole at sks either. 

Maybe, the modern period correlation is just a fluke. Let's look back at the longest temperature record we have: the Central England Temperature record.

Fig. 3. The CET is an absolute temperature record not an anomaly. As such it's a bit "messier" than others, so I've applied a trailing 10Yr average.

The relationship looks pretty good there too. At least after 1750, and at least good enough to be at least considered  as a factor in climate models. Or even as an uncertainty in climate models. But there's no mention of it in any of the GCM (General Circulation Model) literature that I could find.

We can see that there's a relationship, but which way round? Is the climate changing the location of the Magnetic North Pole? Or is the change of the Magnetic North Pole influencing climate?  That's the subject of Part II of "Is The Earth's Magnetic Field Driving Our Climate?"