What is Force x? The Sun could influence Earths climate through magnetic fields, solar particle flows, or spectral changes. | Image: ESA
What’s going on with the Sun?
In the last post in the climate research series we described David’s major finding that changes in total sunlight lead Earth’s temperature by one sunspot cycle. But what’s going on with the Sun — what is the mechanism? In this post David lays out four puzzling clues about solar influence on our global temperature, then puts forward a hypothesis. What force (or forces) are required to resolve all these odd points?
To recap: Both his Fourier analysis and many independent papers suggest there is a delay between total solar irradiation (TSI) and global temperature. David reasoned that the delay is a true delay, not just a smoothing effect while increased heat propagates around the planet. Because the timing is so tied to solar cycles, the trigger for the delay must start on the Sun, not on the Earth. This is not just a case of our oceans slowly absorbing the extra energy from the Sun — and there simply isn’t enough, in any case. Something quite different is going on. Something on the sun changes, in sync with the variation in sunlight, but the corresponding changes following about 11 years later and change the way the Earth responds to incoming energy. It modulates the Earth’s albedo, controlling the Earth’s temperature like a tap controls the flow of water through a pipe.
For the moment we’ll call this mysterious phenomenon Force X (think X-rays, or Planet X). Candidates include solar magnetic fluxes, solar wind changes, and shifts in the solar spectrum (during each solar cycle, the energy shifts from more UV to more infra red and back). Something going on in the sun changes things like clouds, aerosols or jet streams on planet Earth, and through these secondary changes the Sun apparently controls a lot of the variation in temperatures on Earth.
The clues — the four phenomena that emerged from Evans’ work:
1. The Notch. In the short run, extra sunlight does no warming. Over the last century about 10% of the warming on Earth is because the direct heating effect of the Sun shining a little more brightly. However, while there are small peaks and falls in sunlight as part of the eleven year sunspot cycle, mysteriously there are no corresponding rises and falls in global temperature. This is the “notch effect”, where the extra energy from the Sun doesn’t produce a spike of warmth (even a small one, which would be detectable easily with Fourier maths). So some effect (but what!?) is occurring at the same time as a peak in sunlight, which changes the way the Earth responds to the extra light.
2. Changes in albedo (presumably clouds) are more important than the direct heating effect of changes in sunlight. David looked at the data on albedo and the amount of sunlight arriving on Earth, and calculated that the effect of changes in externally driven albedo (EDA) on global temperature is at least two times greater than the direct heating effect of changes in TSI, and possibly much more. Clouds blanket 60% of the Earth, they are the gatekeepers of sunlight into our climate system. Yet no major model includes the influence of EDA.
3. The delay, of one sunspot cycle. There is a delay of one sunspot cycle (about 11 years, or one half of a full solar cycle of about 22 years) between a change in TSI and a change in temperature on Earth. Something other than the direct heating effect of TSI is driving that — there must also be an indirect effect of TSI, that is delayed. The delay originates on the Sun, not on Earth, because it is synced to the solar cycle. What is it about the Sun that changes one sunspot cycle after the sunlight (or TSI) peaks and falls?
4. In the long run extra sunlight does too much warming. For periods longer than 20 years, the Sun controls temperatures on Earth in a fairly predictable, linear way (this is the flat section of that Fig 2 in post 21). The low pass filter shows that over any long time period, and in every dataset, the “warming effect” is much the same. David calculated that the effect of a change in sunlight carries 14 times the influence of the actual change in energy itself. So bizarrely, the effect of the suns light is amplified somehow — which is consistent with albedo modulation (and really, it is hard to see what else it could be).
All these clues tell us that something much bigger and more important than mere fluctuations in the Joules of sunlight is controlling our climate. Solar TSI is an indicator, but not the agent. So figure that something coming off the Sun that isn’t sunlight is causing Earth to warm and cool, quite possibly through controlling clouds. But, under a single-agent hypothesis, whatever it is also stops Earth warming in the short period that sunlight peaks each cycle. Strangely the thing that seems to amplify the effect of sunlight is also delayed by a sunspot cycle, but in the long run a more active sun means a warmer Earth.
In this post David considers whether all four of the unexplained climate phenomenon can be wrapped into one hypothesis, one force, called “force X” for now. If there are moments when you read this single hypothesis and wonder if this is not an easy or ideal fit, rest assured, in the next post in this series he splits Force X into two separate processes, replacing the Force X hypothesis with the Force ND hypothesis. Two forces fit better, but are more complicated — Occam’s razor and all that. That’s up soon. — Jo
__________________________________________
23. The Force-X Hypothesis
Dr David Evans, 31 March 2016, Project home, Intro, Previous, Next.
This post pieces together numerous clues about strong influences on surface warming into a working hypothesis about a single strong warming influence, called “force X”.
Discussion
We have now identified four “strong” manifestations of one or more climate influences not included in conventional climate models, where “strong” means to have at least as much effect on surface temperature as the direct heating effect of changes in total solar irradiance (TSI):
- Externally driven albedo (EDA) is causing albedo modulation. Post 10.
- The notch implies a countervailing influence during TSI peaks. Post 21.
- The empirical transfer function implies an indirect solar sensitivity (ISS). Post 21.
- The delay implies an influence that lags TSI by ~11 years. Post 22.
The EDA and notch are new pieces of the puzzle; the ISS and delay have long been known but not necessarily connected. This theory is presumably original in combining all four.
It is well known that variations in direct heating by TSI are too small to explain global warming: the 11-year-smoothed TSI (at 1 AU) at rose ~0.7 W m−2 from 1900 to 2000, but that only caused ~0.08 [0.05, 0.25] °C (Eq. (1) of post 21) of the observed 0.8 °C of observed surface warming, or ~10%.
How many independent strong influences can there be? AR5, Table TS.6, lists only greenhouse gases, aerosols, and albedo changes due to land-use change as long-term strong influences, and volcanoes can be strong but are transitory; yet the four manifestations listed above are none of these.
The simplest explanation is that the four items above are not manifestations of four separate and previously unknown influences, but of one. Here we will be guided by Occam’s razor.
Let us assume there is only one influence, for the remainder of this post. We call it “force X” — because although the outline and some properties of the influence can be deduced at this stage, the exact mechanism is unknown. (There is an historical precedent for the “X”: Wilhelm Röntgen named x-rays thusly in 1895 because although he could demonstrate their presence and effects, he did not know what they were exactly. Hopefully when and if force X becomes completely known, it will be renamed.)
The notch shows that force X is synchronized to the Sun — if the delay was of constant duration then force X would get out of sync with the TSI peaks. Thus the delay is not a propagation delay for heat moving around on Earth. It is difficult to see how the relatively tiny changes in TSI during a TSI maximum could alter anything of significance on Earth, so it would appear that force X originates in the Sun, though it may act via agents on Earth. The EDA finding indicates force X acts via albedo modulation. The delay indicates that force X acts ~11 years after a corresponding change in smoothed TSI, implying that changes in TSI occur ~11 years before the corresponding changes in force X. The duration of the delay is suggestive of one sunspot cycle (a Schwabe cycle, ~11 years), or half of one full solar cycle (a Hale cycle, ~22 years) — a half-cycle delay in the Sun’s dynamo is perhaps the simplest and most natural lag in a rotating system. The ISS indicates that force X has an order of magnitude more influence on surface temperatures than the direct heating effect of TSI over the longer term.
We will assume without loss of generality that force X is a warming influence, rather than cooling. At the sunspot maximum each sunspot cycle the TSI peaks, whence force X must trough to counteract the effect of the peaking TSI in the surface temperature record. These TSI peaks occur just when the Sun’s magnetic field flips polarity and the solar polar field goes through zero (though many other aspects of the Sun’s magnetic field do not go through zero).
Hypothesis X
There exists an influence on the Earth’s mean surface temperature, called “force X”, such that:
- When force X increases, the surface starts warming immediately and becomes warm after a delay determined only by the thermal inertia of the Earth’s climate system (in the order of a year).
- Force X modulates the Earth’s albedo.
- Changes in force X occur half of a full solar cycle, or ~11 years on average, after corresponding changes in smoothed TSI (smoothed or averaged over at least an entire sunspot cycle).
- Force X is weaker when the Sun’s magnetic field is reversing its polarity.
- On decadal and centennial time scales, force X is such that the surface warming associated with a change in TSI is an order of magnitude greater than the direct heating effect of that change in TSI.
More Discussion
The observational evidence for a delay in post 22 is of a statistical nature, consistent with underlying changes in TSI found by smoothing TSI over a sunspot cycle or longer, sufficient to be independent of the TSI peak in the middle of the sunspot cycle. The delay is not sharply defined; TSI does not precisely foretell every small change in force X and surface temperatures that occur ~11 years later. Instead force X lags the underlying or smoothed TSI. Hence there is no contradiction in force X being at its weakest during a sunspot cycle just when TSI is peaking, which is of course about ~11 years after TSI last peaked. Force X appears to change on a decadal scale only in response to decadal changes in TSI. Also bear in mind that TSI is not force X, only an imperfect predictor of force X, and we have only the sunspot record and estimated sunspot-TSI relationships to work with.
The coincidence between peaks in TSI and the flipping of the solar magnetic field could explain the notching. As TSI peaks force X is in a trough — see Fig. 1 — and these countervailing influences cancel out sufficiently closely as to leave no trace in the surface temperature record. This begs the question of whether there might be some feedbacks or some other principle behind such a precise cancellation.
…
Figure 1: When TSI peaks, the solar magnetic field is at its weakest because it is reversing polarity. This figure merely illustrates the timing; the solar polar field is but one aspect of the Sun’s magnetic field. (It was Joanne Nova who first realized the significance of this coincidence of notching with the reversal of the Sun’s magnetic field.)
Many solar phenomena are related to the power delivered by the Sun’s electromagnetic field, and thus to the product of its electric field strength and magnetic flux — which correlate, so the power is roughly proportional to the square of the magnetic flux. The number of sunspots is such a phenomenon, so, because the square of the magnetic flux is indifferent to its polarity, the sunspots follow an apparent ~11 year cycle even though the full solar cycle is ~22 years. Some phenomena, such as hydrological cycles on Earth (which are mapped back thousands of years on the Nile delta), are sensitive to the full 22-year cycles rather than to the 11-year sunspot cycle.
The duration of the hypothesized delay is one sunspot cycle, or ~11 years on average. But, starting from the moment of a significant change in underlying or smoothed TSI, is the delay to the corresponding change in force X the duration of the current, previous, or next sunspot cycle, or maybe a weighted average of all of them?
Analogy
An analogy may help to understand the delay.
A four stroke combustion engine has four phases: “suck, squeeze, bang, and blow”. If you know how much fuel and air is inhaled during the “suck” phase then you know how much power will be produced in the “bang” phase, which comes half a full cycle (two phases) later. Apparently something similar is happening with the Sun: the sunspots, or the tiny changes in TSI, tell us how much force X there will be half of a full solar cycle later.
It’s a bit of a strain to get my head around all that, but I reckon our position at any particular epoch in the galactic plane and dark matter have an influence on everything. So much that we don’t know, yet some pretend to know everything in absolute terms. I’m looking at you, climate worriers.
111
I thought I’d clarify what I was thinking about in my comment. As our solar system moves around the outer periphery of our galaxy, we are not lock step with everything else like the components of a wheel. What was in place 1000, 10,000, 100,000 and so on years ago, are all different in galactic placement with each other.
What if there are periods of alignment or such that invoke/allow significant climatic etc changes in our solar system? What if we are part of galactic wide perturbations that affect everything over time.
140
Precession!
Tony
40
Hi Tony,
I think the Bemused is talking about forces outside of what David is looking at here.
I do remember some time ago reading about a location in the Galaxy which our planet passes through from time to time and it was suspected that some effect may arise from this. Can’t remember any details, but while certainly precession does produce effects you are talking about, the main effect could be from passing through that Galactic location.
Back slider has mentioned Svensmark below, I should look into that, because at the moment I have only a superficial view of his work and it may be linked.
David’s first intro discussion is clear and promising so now must print it off and do some work.
KK
41
Earth’s wild and hazardous journey through the galaxy:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228411-500-earths-wild-ride-our-voyage-through-the-milky-way/
40
Thanks David,
A good outline. It solved the mystery of how the earth is occasionally subjected to unusual conditions. It seems that the Earth passes through sections of the Galaxy which contain large amounts of unpleasant content as opposed to the present situation where we are in what is referred to as a bubble which is apparently a benign situation. The situation described would not have any particular predictable periodicity and appears to be just a random occurrence.
KK
40
They’re called Galactic Spiral Arms. A recent survey (1990s) by the Spitzer Space Telescope provided some convincing evidence which confirmed the Home or Milky Way Galaxy to be a “Barred Spiral Galaxy.” There’s a good artist’s impression here annotated.
I went to Shaviv’s website to check on his “Ice Ages/Spiral Arm Crossings” paper which was a very interesting proposal but it seems to have been withdrawn.
The Spiral Arms are thought to be density waves in the galactic medium and orbit the centre of the galaxy, as the bar rotates. Our Solar System orbits somewhat faster than the spiral arms do, taking about 250MY per orbit. In that time, it passes through most of the existing spiral arms including the spurs. At present, it’s in Gould’s Belt on the edge of the Orion-Cygnus arm or spur after having passed through the Sagittarius-Carina Arm before that, about 60MYA, I think. The Spiral Arms are where there is a lot of star birth. The leading edge of an arm seems to create large hot blue stars (like the Pleiades, perhaps) which die young. If our Solar System is close to one of these exploding giants, it could give us some freezing grief.
This prospect was behind
20
Hmph. Now what went wrong there? To finish:
Svensmark published a paper four years ago linking Supernovae to climate change effects and the evolution of life on Earth. It’s a great read.
It takes something big, really big, like a star (and this includes the Sun), or even a galaxy, to affect/change/modify our climate in a way to make us sit up and notice. Climate Change? Us? We’re about as effective as termites trying to bore a hole in a reinforced concrete bridge.
12
Found it.
Shaviv must be working on his web site; there are quite a few broken links. Anyway, his paper The Milky Way Galaxy’s Spiral Arms and Ice Age Epochs and the Cosmic Ray Connection is still available after all.
There’s also this page from New Scientist ( “The Earth’s Wild Ride: Our Voyage Through the Milky Way” which is along the lines of KK’s thinking.
Read and enjoy.
20
When I learned what little astronomy I know, the explanation for those spiral arms was that they represent the stars within them responding to Newton’s classical laws of motion — orbiting around a central core and not restrained by sufficient pull of gravity, they move outward away from the center of the galaxy where supposedly they were originally spawned and their position in the arms representing the time since they came into existence.
Personally I don’t have the background to validate or invalidate this idea. But in my youth it captured my imagination. Now I’m more skeptical and I wonder what we’re actually seeing evidence of in those beautiful spiral arms — arms we can’t even see clearly in our galaxy because we look at them from within one arm (supposedly) but have to observe in other galaxies far, far away. And back then, by the way, it never occurred to me to question the explanation. But now…
20
Roy, I think that your concept is still valid but there is lot more fine detail available now.
KK
20
KK,
One question I can think of now but didn’t back then is this. Why are there discrete spiral arms? Why not simply stars moving outward in all directions forming an amorphous mass like galaxy instead of spirals? The formation of discrete arms implies star formation at regular intervals almost like it was being timed according to a schedule and not what I would expect — formation at random.
20
Or maybe the implication is that stars are formed only at certain positions so that they can move outward only in certain directions. Either way it looks like something I wouldn’t expect.
10
Svensmark covered this, as the earth moves through our galaxy’s spiral arms.
10
Hi Tony… I think you meant ‘recession’. 🙂
Global economics controls CO2 via ‘E’ (economy) equals ‘M’ (fiat Money) ‘CO2’ (Carbon dioxide) ‘squared’, or. E=MCO2 2….. Further…
Solar cycles follow terrestrial economic cycles that determine how much fiat currency is emitted by central banks and the like, which in turn governs how much CO2 is produced,
This is the fifth force/element. In other words, the global economic climate controls the weather and solar cycles.
Thanks
Mike
20
Svensmark has answered this, along with everything else.
40
Hi Back slider.
Is there a site that gives a good outline of Svensmarks theory?
KK
10
The late [ died 2014 ] Nigel Calder’s web site Calders Updates gives a good laypersons round up of two of Henrik Svensmarks hypothesis.
Nigel Calder was the [ second ] science editor for the top of the public orientated science publishing field at the time, the British science mag, New Scientist from 1964.
My wife who is not at all science orientated often beat me in getting her hands on the latest New Scientist for a read when it arrived.
Nigel Calder was a very strong supporter of Henrik Svensmark’s hypothesis and of Svensmark personally.
I first came across Nigel Calder’s Calders Updates and read them regularly from the mid 2000’s.
Just scroll down through the personal posts until you find Nigel Calder’s own postings on Svensmark’s hypothesis or go straight to some of them as below.
A stellar revision of the story of life
Sorry folks, cosmic rays really are in charge
Yet another trick of cosmic rays
Cosmic rays sank the Titanic
and more!
70
Thanks ROM
Just taking a break from mowing the lawn at the moment and will get back to the to read this later. Looking forward to it.
KK
10
This is David and Jo’s post this time around but if you want to experience a bit more of a mind bending experience then Nir Shaviv’s Science Bits blog and his opinions and research on Climate,
Weather, Solar influences and IPCC climate science and etc is a good place to start.
Go to the top to find a branch of science, ie; “Bits”, “Research” and his “Blog” that Shaviv has commented on with some very interesting opinions and conclusions.
31
Thanks and ignore the red, fat finger on mob.
00
ROM
Those articles by Nigel Calder are very readable.
At my age and the limited time left, I appreciate not having to read original scientific papers.
KK
00
Keith, he has some good videos on YouTube that are very easy to follow. He will blow you away with the correlation he is able to show.
After a lot of rejections The Royal Society finally published his work.
He has experimental evidence to back up his findings on how cosmic rays build aerosols in the atmosphere to form more clouds.
20
I recently found this video explaining all the nuances of the Earth’s motions around the sun… and around itself. The video acknowledges matter-of-factly that these motions have a direct influence on Earth’s climate, including glacial ages. There are more elements than I thought. In view of this, it seems anthropogenic CO2 emissions can only have a very small relative effect. An interesting nine and a half minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82p-DYgGFjI
71
Watched that video, Bernard and was fascinated by it. Thanks for posting it.
Some things I Know already but some of it is new to me. It’s interesting but also provocative in that there’s a whole lot of it, thousands and hundreds of thousands of years, that can only be based on relatively recent observation and a lot of modeling. I’m sure that if all the observations are completely accurate and everything important to the modeling has been taken into account, the math tells the correct story. But I wonder about the accuracy of all the observations and the inclusion of every relevant thing (my natural skepticism). It asks a whole lot more questions to me than it answers. But I’m going to keep it around for future reference.
50
Milankovitch, the natural cycles, unfortunately superceded by GHG forcings. The physical reality versuss the blatantly unbelievable.
[Can you actually substantiate that GHG forcings supercede Milankovitch cycles?] AZ
04
No. Not even close. It’s well known the GHG’s rise after the warming begins and by around 800 years. Caillon et al. 2003 It’s also true of the PETM event 55ya. Sluijs 2007. Warming causes GHG rise. Perhaps there is some feedback amplification. PErhaps not much because the extra energy just reroutes to space via water vapor.
71
Jo
I wouldn’t accept even a little bit of “feedback amplification” because the Earth is a self limiting system based on the triple point of water.
Given the almost unlimited supply of this dangerous gas, H2O, there is little chance of imminent incineration.
We are caught between a rock and a hard place, with the Earth’s surface at proximately 15 degrees C and deep space at approximately 1.3 degrees above absolute zero.
We should be thankful for any heat we can receive and hold onto.
The alternative is the deep freeze.
KK
10
Silly there are no positive feedbacks which is understandable when you realise that CO2 has no part to play and of course the massive model failures back this up.
20
I’m beginning to realize that what you asked with that question might not be idle speculation. We can be quite sure that we’re influenced in some degree by the gravity of every thing in our galaxy and to a lesser degree by the gravity of everything in the whole of the universe. What if there are other influences, such as what David has been exploring? And if so, are they knowable, today or someday in the future?
The thought is both exciting and a bit scary.
100
Greetings to all:
A little late getting into this thread, but one idea which has been floating around about pinwheel galaxy structure(s) is that they represent a type of density wave, along which star formation takes place (think about the wake just in front of a large ship as it travels through the water).
The rotational velocity of the density wave itself is faster than the material in interstellar space (dust, gas, supernovae remnants, etc … ), so the wave overtakes the material, compresses it, and then moves on.
I’ve seen various estimates that one ‘galactic year’ (the time it takes for our galaxy to make one full rotation) is greater than 250 m.a. An early proponent of the Shaviv hypothesis was Dr. Paul R. Janke, who, unless he has gone to his Eternal Reward, publishes the “Correlated History of the Earth” and the “Correlated History of the Universe” through the World Wide Museum of Natural History, and his company, Pan Terra. On his chart, he shows possible effects from our solar system passing through the various spiral arms of our galaxy. Obviously, it is an intriguing idea, but needs a lot more work to show any testable hypotheses.
The last address I had for Pan Terra is P. O. Box 556, Hill City, South Dakota 57745. The “Universe” chart duplicates a lot of the same material on the “Earth” chart, but both are worthwhile to have.
I offered to help Dr. Janke update his chart, as US stratigraphic nomenclature evolved, but I believe he was in failing health, and had other concerns besides his fabulous charts.
Hope that helps, and my regards to all,
Vlad
60
Svensmark’s work includes looking at what happens when the earth moves through a spiral arm.
He has correlated this with data.
30
Very interesting. Is there known responses of earth’s magnetosphere to that of the sun?
50
Possibly Earth’s dipole?
http://file.scirp.org/Html/7-2801173_63199.htm
International Journal of Geosciences
Vol.07 No.01(2016), Article ID:63199,13 pages
10.4236/ijg.2016.71007 Quantification of the Diminishing Earth’s Magnetic Dipole Intensity and Geomagnetic Activity as the Causal Source for Global Warming within the Oceans and Atmosphere
David A. E. Vares1,2, Trevor N. Carniello2,3, Michael A. Persinger1,2,3
The remarkably strong negative correlation (r = −0.99) between the earth’s magnetic dipole moment values and global CO2-temperature indicators over the last ~30 years is sufficient to be considered causal if contributing energies were within the same order of magnitude.
It seems to be dependent on the measurement of the energy involved.
The full paper is a free download.
30
Has David seen this CSIRO Paper from 2008? “Does a Spin–Orbit Coupling Between the Sun and the Jovian
Planets Govern the Solar Cycle?”
http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=AS06018.pdf
110
Peter, thanks for pointing out that paper, I’d been unaware of it. I’ve seem similar, and post 25 is on possible mechanisms.
It may turn out the solar system is a bit of a clockwork mechanism, with many gravitational and electromagnetic links between the parts, where some aspects of this dance may have a strong influence on the Earth’s albedo and thus its temperature.
161
Point 4.3 is of specific interest in this forum I think.
70
Well spotted. Could be very relevant. Quoting from Ian Wilson’s paper:
160
From memory a phase lock is always at 90 degrees.There seems to be a 90 degree relationship in fig1.
30
A mechanical lock can be at any angle. I mean a free running oscilator like a PLL.
20
In this case the phase lock refers to one periodic action boosting or amplifying motion in something. Going out of lock would then imply that the force which was previously acting to boost the result, starts to act against it. This occurs when an amplifying signal (in this case presumably the gravitational acceleration from the planets) is at a slightly different frequency than the responding bodies natural resonance (in this case the meridional flow at the sun’s surface). For a large amount of time the input force boosts the responding body, until the phase shift become such that the input starts to counteract or reduce the responding body.
I like to think of a hand in a bath of water. If your hand moves back and forth at or close to the resonant frequency of the bath, the wave builds and builds. If your hand moves slightly faster or slower however, the hand suddenly starts to work against the wave. That is the type of phase collapse I am envisioning here. The gravitational (tidal) acceleration applied to the essentially liquid surface of the sun operates at a slightly different frequency than the natural harmonic of that body, so whilst that force usually amplifies the effect, occasionally it works against the effect. The time frame of reference in this paper is particularly relevant because it refers to basically the last 100 years of warming, preceding a postulated phase breakdown. We should see if they are right over the next 4 or 5 years or so.
90
There is certainly plenty of scope for a lagging response from the sun spot max.in the paper’s postulation
10
Hi David,
Ian Wilson’s more recent workfrom 2010 is documented with discussions at my website. The later development of his solar-planetary hypothesis was published in the Pattern Recognition in Physics special edition which was suppressed by Copernicus. https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/prp-special-issue/
The synchronisation of solar system motion and solar variation also extends to the changes in our Moon’s orbit which bring about cyclic changes in tidal motion on long and shorter term timescales. These appear to be linked to the alternate solar-derived energy absorption and release phases of oceanic energy storage, including ENSO. There is likely an albedo effect too.
141
Thank you for acknowledging the importance of this.
40
David Evans,
You are clearly going down the right rabbit hole (including electromagnetism as of huge importance). Most climate scientists, however numerous, are not.
72
Thanks Christoph.
One must go down the rabbit hole once you realize that the basic climate sensitivity model, the forcing-feedback framework upon which the whole CO2 scare is based, is definitely wrong (it omits a whole category of feedbacks that greatly mitigate the effect of increasing CO2, the GCMs sending increased trapped heat to the ground instead of just emitting it to space from water vapor). So if not CO2, then what?
Nearly all climate scientists currently believe that simple model to a greater or lesser extent, so are unmotivated to look further.
82
Electro magnetic is a manifestation not the cause.
00
This is a discussion by Ian Wilson on that paper.
I hope the link works.
I’ll get the hang of this eventually.
30
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/solar-cycles/IanwilsonForum2008.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiFoYXYrePLAhVhJaYKHcC-BJYQFggaMAA&usg=AFQjCNHWIxusl–iNplhGfho4RJ_qF41mA
Last try..
10
Just google:
IanwilsonForum2008
For a presentation by the author.
10
Robk,
Usually you can ditch everything after, AND INCLUDING, the “&”, which is tracker info or a record of where you’ve been. tom0mason has it absolutely right. Use this for URLs that end in .html or .htm as well.
30
Everything after, AND INCLUDING, the “&” is like gossip. A URL is only an address after all, so you can keep to that.
The stuff after and including the “&” like first saying Robk lives here (the URL)–and here comes the gossip–but did you know he bought some weed this AM and he likes to feed it to schoolgirls and his backyard is a mess and he doesn’t like eating vegetables and these are the people he called last night. No reason to ever include it; frequently invasive.
30
Thanks.
Rk
10
Robk
Did you mean this link?
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/solar-cycles/IanwilsonForum2008.pdf
As I spied a PDF document in the address you gave I just copied the web address up to the .pdf and pasted that into the address bar.The document IanwilsonForum2008.pdf (1.5Mb large) then loads.
30
Ta.
20
P.S.it’s worth reading through the paper to the end as the last page or two pulls it together.
20
I note Wilson said his next paper would be in 2009 in Russian. It’s unclear if that’s an exchange with CSIRO, or if that’s what happens when you have something to say that doesn’t fit the world view.
30
Cited 16 times. Among them these
Evidence for Planetary Forcing of the Cosmic Ray Intensity and Solar Activity Throughout the Past 9400 Years
By: McCracken, K. G.; Beer, J.; Steinhilber, F.
SOLAR PHYSICS Volume: 289 Issue: 8 Pages: 3207-3229 Published: AUG 2014
Empirical evidences for a planetary modulation of total solar irradiance and the TSI signature of the 1.09-year Earth-Jupiter conjunction cycle
By: Scafetta, Nicola; Willson, Richard C.
ASTROPHYSICS AND SPACE SCIENCE Volume: 348 Issue: 1 Pages: 25-39 Published: NOV 2013
Reviewing the effect of CO2 and the sun on global climate
By: Florides, Georgios A.; Christodoulides, Paul; Messaritis, Vassilios
RENEWABLE & SUSTAINABLE ENERGY REVIEWS Volume: 26 Pages: 639-651 Published: OCT 2013
CLIMATE CHANGE AND CARBON DIOXIDE: GEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE
By: Priem, Harry N. A.
ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT Volume: 24 Issue: 3-4 Pages: 361-380 Published: FEB 2013
Does the Sun work as a nuclear fusion amplifier of planetary tidal forcing? A proposal for a physical mechanism based on the mass-luminosity relation
By: Scafetta, Nicola
JOURNAL OF ATMOSPHERIC AND SOLAR-TERRESTRIAL PHYSICS Volume: 81-82 Pages: 27-40 Published: JUN 2012
Multi-scale harmonic model for solar and climate cyclical variation throughout the Holocene based on Jupiter-Saturn tidal frequencies plus the 11-year solar dynamo cycle
By: Scafetta, Nicola
JOURNAL OF ATMOSPHERIC AND SOLAR-TERRESTRIAL PHYSICS Volume: 80 Pages: 296-311 Published: MAY 2012
Phase lags of solar hemispheric cycles
By: Murakoezy, J.; Ludmany, A.
MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY Volume: 419 Issue: 4 Pages: 3624-3630 Published: FEB 2012
A shared frequency set between the historical mid-latitude aurora records and the global surface temperature
By: Scafetta, Nicola
JOURNAL OF ATMOSPHERIC AND SOLAR-TERRESTRIAL PHYSICS Volume: 74 Pages: 145-163 Published: JAN 2012
Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications
By: Scafetta, Nicola
JOURNAL OF ATMOSPHERIC AND SOLAR-TERRESTRIAL PHYSICS Volume: 72 Issue: 13 Pages: 951-970 Published: AUG 2010
Long-term Variability in the Length of the Solar Cycle
By: Richards, Mercedes T.; Rogers, Michael L.; Richards, Donald St P.
PUBLICATIONS OF THE ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY OF THE PACIFIC Volume: 121 Issue: 881 Pages: 797-809 Published: JUL 2009
21
Is the 2015 date correct?:
23. The Force-X Hypothesis
Dr David Evans, 31 March 2015, Project home, Intro, Previous.
30
Fixed to 2016, thanks Bob.
41
The magic force is electricity, in our case cyclical fluctuations of the electric currents powering the Sun, and via the transformer effect, electrical effects cascading outwards to the heliosphere affecting the Earth which is part of the electrical circuit. It’s devilishly complicated as well.
121
Could earth’s electrical circuit force the STR to stay in its summer latitude?
‘The other key driver in autumn and early winter is the location of the high-pressure systems, known as the subtropical ridge. In recent years, the highs have been further south. That has made it harder for fronts and weather systems to bring rain to southern Australia …’
Andrew Watkins (BoM) March 2015 Landline ABC
50
Louis I’m aware of the part ENSO plays on the STR, but there is something else happening. The energy theory has substance.
http://worldnpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Leybourne_Gregori_NPAproceedings_2014.pdf
60
Also here in youtube. Not the most scintillating speaker but interesting nevertheless.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiM_gLRIuGc
10
Thank you, a very interesting presentation on stellar to geo EM ideas. I’ve been thinking about internal electric magnetic effects in geotectonism for about 15 years. I’ve seen too many igneous features on all scales that can not be explained via pressure intrusion or tectonic stress or tension structural interpretations. Interesting, the sympathetic geomagnetic field change mirrors stellar magnetic variations. Sort of clinches the electric connection. Despite contrary assertions, apparently there is sufficient charge separation and gradients for the geo dynamism interactions we observe to be happening – for they do. A big ball of rock is clearly a bit more than a ball of rock when that rock’s atoms and their shells are predominantly an electromagnetically dominated and exhibiting material, when prodded a bit.
30
Unmentionable,
You may be interested in this paper where Fairbridge identified many of the events which coincide with solar minima but did he not make the electromagnetic connection
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/solar-cycles/MackeyonFairbridge.pdf
10
Thanks Graham, I’ll have a read.
The Leybourne paper’s a bit fast and loose with the geology for me. These speculative/subjective/exploratory papers tend to be, but there are better mechanisms/proposals around for a viable CMB to surface electrical and thermal transfer processes that accounts for observed geodynamics, volcanism, seismicity and geophysics.
The other irk with the Leybourne paper is the lack of Occam’s razor when talking about the source of oscillations. It’s all a bit loose and too many contributors – no math. If I were looking for the oscillations the sun is where I’d look, though I do note he cites the induced inner turbulence as a factor is bought about via planet orbits changing the relative center of mass of the Solar system within the sun and stirring it into various asymmetry.
But the first line put me off, namely:
“1. Introduction
In considering the validation of Earth Endogenous Energy theory (Gregori, 2002), we are predominately concerned with validation of the internal driver, …”
That’s a bit of a leap. The mechanism proposed is so speculative as to be fairly indecipherable.
Electrons flow down EMF repulsive gradients or else toward relative opposite polarities, to cancel their effect on the space, where they are. So there would have to be a relatively highly relative-positive charge sink in the core boundary, for electrons from space to be entering MORs, and ‘grounding out’ towards the mantle-core boundary. If so, what is it about the CMB that then propels them out again, along the proposed ‘sea urchin spines’ again, to heat the mantle there? He’s treating the outlets as structural blocks or units, but they would really be narrow and electrical.
It should also be noted that intrusive emplacements in the mantle, along said spines can only occur if the mantle is extensional, and generally enlarging in volume, and this also means intrusions must be wider at the top, than they are at the CMB base but he has them wider at the bottom and narrowing at the top. Geometrically and volumetrically, that doesn’t work. i.e. his diagrams need to be true 3-D spherical and geometrically correct, they are wrong as he draws them.
40
This is a bit closer to what it should approximate:
http://reocities.com/CapeCanaveral/launchpad/8098/Fig1EMSs.gif
40
Interesting stuff for sure and as you say fairly speculative. I must confess some of the concepts stretch my schoolboy (old school that is) physics to the limit.
However the main issue to me is how all this stuff and David’s paper seem to clearly demonstrate that CO2 is NOT the driver of “climate change” which is my long held view.
31
Prior to all this greenhouse hype we actually already knew it wasn’t. What’s grotesque is that this has been turned around by a fad hyped by media and politics.
51
‘…hyped by media and politics.’
The merging of science, media and politics came about by accident, our job is to overturn the existing paradigm and destroy the triumvirate.
10
“Paradigm-police” gag-reflex and hackles set to 11? … Check! 😉
70
Hello Louis,
I’ve missed Bullwinkle. And I’m glad to see you’re still here and reading the proceedings on Jo Nova.
40
I see the Sun’s magnetic filed intensity has been declining overall. Interesting to note that various people have discovered our Earth’s magnetic field intensity has also been declining consistently over recent times. Not sure if this has any bearing on all this – I suspect it does. Of course this is disturbing for a number of reasons, and if it continues it won’t be too long before the worst case scenario peddled by the AGW alarmists will pale into insignificance compared to the real effects of a declining magnetic field here.
81
In which case the flat (not yet declining) ‘hiatus’ is energy outflow from oceans, producing elevated vapor, prior to a pending steady temperature decline proper … and the slowly cooler conditions with all that vapor present suggests higher albedo to come … accelerating cooling … making more cloud … and making more snow and ice cover –> albedo rise. OK.
And El-Ninos are occurring increasingly further apart because? Well, the field flux has been attenuating slowly for decades, thus heating oceans at a slower rate, so El Nino occurs less often? Thus a global temperature decline is stymied by the time taken for remnant thermal storage to be released, thus delaying T decline. And El-Nino events occurring further apart also does not help speed along a decline, hence the long ‘hiatus’.
Which would suggest the next La-Nina phase would be particularly long, with a slow decline of global T during it, and no next El Nino event for a very long time.
Wouldn’t mind a fast-forward button.
70
‘Wouldn’t mind a fast-forward button.’
To visualise the future we must look back, during the Little Ice Age (LIA) La Ninas were more common.
20
Thanks for that, and your link above, I’ll read that.
10
Sorry, I jumped the gun with comment 2.1. That paper certainly backs your comment. Variations in the solar wind interacting with a declining dipole?
20
“So bizarrely, the effect of the suns light is amplified somehow — which is consistent with albedo modulation (and really, it is hard to see what else it could be).”
Ahh! The CAGW “what else it could be, but CO2”. To get a clue, use not statistical mechanics, but probability theory. What is the ratio of “(not thought of yet)/(thought of and ‘accepted’ + {plus} thought of and ‘discarded’)”. That is what it could be!
Anyhow Joanne please have David comment on:
http://joannenova.com.au/2016/03/its-special-science-where-one-hot-month-is-the-signal-and-years-of-the-pause-is-just-noise/#comment-1793976- still in moderation! Thank you!
All the best! -will-
[It’s now out of moderation.] AZ
37
Consequences of a Change in the Galactic Environment of the Sun
Gary P. Zank, Priscilla C. Frisch
(Submitted on 20 Jan 1999)
The interaction of the heliosphere with interstellar clouds has attracted interest since the late 1920’s, both with a view to explaining apparent quasi-periodic climate “catastrophes” as well as periodic mass extinctions. Until recently, however, models describing the solar wind – local interstellar medium (LISM) interaction self-consistently had not been developed. Here, we describe the results of a two-dimensional (2D) simulation of the interaction between the heliosphere and an interstellar cloud with the same properties as currently, except that the neutral H density is increased from the present value of n(H) ~ 0.2 cm^-3 to 10 cm^-3. The mutual interaction of interstellar neutral hydrogen and plasma is included. The heliospheric cavity is reduced considerably in size (approximately 10 – 14 AU to the termination shock in the upstream direction) and is highly dynamical. The interplanetary environment at the orbit of the Earth changes markedly, with the density of interstellar H increasing to ~2 cm^-3. The termination shock itself experiences periods where it disappears, reforms and disappears again. Considerable mixing of the shocked solar wind and LISM occurs due to Rayleigh-Taylor-like instabilities at the nose, driven by ion-neutral friction. Implications for two anomalously high concentrations of 10Be found in Antarctic ice cores 33 kya and 60 kya, and the absence of prior similar events, are discussed in terms of density enhancements in the surrounding interstellar cloud. The calculation presented here supports past speculation that the galactic environment of the Sun moderates the interplanetary environment at the orbit of the Earth, and possibly also the terrestrial climate.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9901279
Also papers by Steinhilber. I can’t find the one I want but this is an example: Total solar irradiance during the Holocene
F Steinhilber, J Beer, C Fröhlich – Geophysical Research …, 2009 – Wiley Online Library
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009GL040142/full
Also,
Tinsley, Brian A., Solar wind mechanism suggested for weather and climate change, Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, Volume 75, Issue 32
70
Can some of these Earth based observations of the periodic / cyclic weather / climate changes, what ever is the case or the lot, be verified by the now nearly 40 years of observational data of Venus beginning with the “Pioneer Venus Orbiter” in 1978.
If changes in the Earth’s observed magnetic fields, weather, climate and ocean systems are linked to Solar changes and phenomena then the cloud cover and other observed data from Venus might also show a cyclic variation that coincides in time and length with the changes that occur here on Earth which would confirm the solar influences and effects.
Likewise Mars observations and data at any level, Mars of course has no cloud cover at all, that indicate co-incidental cyclic changes in some aspect of the observed Martian atmosphere and etc that coincide with changes on Earth and Venus would just about put the seal on David’s hypothesis.
There have been 24 successful Mars missions beginning with the NASA’s Mariner 4 mission which did a flyby of Mars in July of 1965.
So the Mars data and observations now go back some 50 years, a half a century or about as long as we have had some relatively comprehensive and decent observations of the World’s oceans.
With a half a century of data, OK sparse perhaps in the beginning, there will have been four cycles where the periodic changes in the solar influences might have subtly changed conditions on Mars and Venus as well as the Earth.
110
Extract from ‘Tomorrow’s Weather’ Alex S. Gaddes (1990,) pp40-41, 49-50.
“The W Factor
“What particular phenomenon is known to exist in this zone which could have any possible relevance? Is it possible that it is the vital zone from which our Earth’s climate is controlled?
“Dr Harrington and I were agreed that (unknown) entity,(he named it the ‘W’ (weather) factor, appeared to be emanating from the sun.
“He also agreed with me that, whatever is behind the emanation, is migrating in a retrograde direction relative to the sun’s rotation.
Tidal Activity
“The most likely candidate that I can think of at the moment is tidal activity, brought about by the gravitational influence of the planet; this influence would be quite capable of producing any number of different intensities of ‘pull ‘on the Sun and the effect would always produce retrograde tidal waves therein; furthermore, it would accommodate all the required time scales.
“The above tidal effects would be reflected in the constant train of sunspot waves (the so-called 11 year cycles,) the frequency of which I’ve used as No. 4 constant.
“It seems to me that the amount of consequent solar activity thus produced, would be proportional to the degree of tidal disturbance wrought by the gravitational ‘pull’ of the planets, from their given positions in their respective orbits.
“The reason that the overall sunspot wave frequency remains constant is that the solar rotation and the motion of the planets remain constant.
“It is noted, that it is the amplitude of the sunspot waves that varies, but the fact that over the 297.76 year solar cycle, the sunspot wave periods average out, makes the sunspot wave frequency constant at 11.028148 years,(the new value, see Fig. 3.) All of which seems to argue that whatever it is that is acting on the sun to produce the enigmatic sunspots, has a cyclic period of 297.76 years…….”
“It might turn out that the Sun is responsible for both our weather and long-term climate patterns; that some unknown X factor (you’ve named it the ‘W’ (weather) factor) is emanating from the Sun at a steady rate, retrograde, relative to the Earth’s rotation, in some way superimposes its influence on Earth’s upper air wave system, which (in turn) in accord with hierarchic principle, controls the climate/weather systems of our troposphere. …”
The fact that Brown has found an 11 year period in the solar magnetic phenomena, with an intensity curve which is anti-cyclic to that of the sunspot number, seems to argue that whatever force is responsible for the sunspots, might also be responsible for the solar magnetic phenomena.
In my letter to Dr Nelson (page 9) I called attention to the significance of the latitude of the Sun which is rotating at the 27d rate. This just happens to be the zone of the Sun in which the enigmatic sunspots are to be found.
That the AQD minima is a half-cycle ahead of the sunspot cycle, seems to indicate that the latter phenomenon is a delayed (surface) manifestation of something which is happening deeper within the Sun and which takes five years to migrate to the surface, where it appears as the well known, but little understood sunspots.
Unknown Entity
(a) It appears to me that the unknown entity, which ends up as a visible sunspot, is carried from its place of origin by a convection cell. Granting this and that, there would also be the possibility of a cell being retarded, unduly, in its journey out to the surface of the Sun, by competition with other convection cells, or other factors. The erratic nature of the controversial ’11 year’ sunspot ‘cycle’ could thus be explained.
(b) The inference drawn from this quotation is that there are, indeed, two (or more) processes going on in the Sun, which conjointly, appear to be responsible for solar magnetic phenomena and sunspots as well.
There is also a strong indication that the “double-humps” that he talks about in both the AQD and the sunspot cycles, are likely to turn out to represent harmonic ‘beats’ between different cycle trains. I have a strong feeling that the further we proceed with this study, the more synonymous the ‘beat’ will become with the climate/weather cycle.
61
Very interesting about the reference to 11 year half cycle and 22 year cycles in this article. In my post #2.5 in the last article on March 26,
http://joannenova.com.au/2016/03/its-special-science-where-one-hot-month-is-the-signal-and-years-of-the-pause-is-just-noise/
I reported that I found a distinct 22 year cycle in the temperature chart posted by Jo by applying technical cycle analysis to that chart.
This is significant in that this 22 year cycle was arrived upon independently using a totally different analysis technique than what is being discussed in this article. It is further evidence that the 22 warming/cooling cycle exists.
40
Robert R
It’s a bit hard to know what go make of your analysis without any idea of your methodology.
00
A bit of background then.
The area of research is called fractal geometry. This involves quite complex mathematics where shapes of things have similar shapes to the whole going up and down through their parts. Very complex mathematics was discovered behind very complex patterns. (Mandelbrot,1978)
However these fractals, though complex, were simply patterns in space. When time was combined with space the fractals got enormously more complex mathematically and the early fractal mathematicians put this down to randomness in events over time.
However more recent further research of data sets were shown to be not random but rather constructed from very complex mathematical relationships between the sizes of sub parts of the fractal layers or scales of cycles over time.
Visualize that if a ‘sine wave” type cycle has a set number of sub cycles within it and those sub cycles have the same number of sub cycles within them and so on, then for example 30 scales down within a cycle there will be the number of 2nd scale cycles to the power of 30. The number of scales is also only limited by the ability to measure them. These are huge numbers and lead to huge numbers of iterations to analyse. Their complexity appears random but they are not.
If you chart something it can be potentially analyzed if these complex relationships between sub cycles or waves are known and able to be computed. When one knows where they are in the cycle then one can predict the next part of the cycle.
This can be applied to anything that can be accurately measured with meaningful data. Simply anything that moves, explodes, reproduces, burns, or fluctuates in any way is subject to this if it can be measured with meaningful data. The heat emitted by a candle, the cyclical rise and fall of mice populations, financial markets and yes world temperature.
If sun spot activity is vibrating on a 22 year wave at the moment for example, then this will be a sub wave of a larger wave that looks as though it may be about 100 years long currently. This will be part of an even bigger wave on a higher scale. This 22 year cycle will break up into smaller waves. However the other waves in the scale where the 22 year wave is positioned will be in the order of 22 years but only one other wave next to it will equal 22 years, the others being relatively bigger or smaller in its scale. To know the length of these waves one would need accurate measurements of data for sunspots over say 200 years. It appears that current world temperature measurements show that the present world temperature cycle length on this scale is also 22 years. This points to Earth temperature correlating with sunspot activity which one would expect because of the fact that the sun is overwhelmingly the main source of heat on this planet.
Cheers Robert
40
Reference magnetics does this paper have any bearing on it?
Originally published in Energy & Environment
Climate Change and the Earth’s Magnetic Poles,
A Possible Connection
http://www.akk.me.uk/Climate_Change.htm
30
David’s work usually goes way over my head (after all, I am only a mere engineer…), but the subsequent commentary is invaluable in helping to make sense of it.
David, thank you for your work. Commentators, thank you for your contributions in its elucidation.
I love this blog!
140
Further proof that we of the Jedi Churches (copyright reserved) have been correct from times immemorial.
We have always stated that The Force is with us, and now science has proven us correct; not, of course, that we ever needed such proof.
30
So we are engaged in a discussion about force “X”
What is “X”?
At the moment we do not know. However we expect that “x” is the independent variable. The dependent variable is the “Global Temperature” (T). We can not even measure “global Temperature” (T), we can only estimate it.
What we do apparently know is that T does not respond to short term variations in Solar Irradiance over the period of one year!
http://joannenova.com.au/2016/03/weekend-unthreaded-111/#comment-1789805
In the above comment I point out that the varition in solar Irradiance between Perihelion and aphelion is 91 W/M2 and the expected variation in T is 4C!
So far no estimate of T demonstrates an annual variation of 4C!
If T does respond the effect has not been documented yet. I think it is totally unreasonable that T does not respond to “X” in the short term (less than 6 months). At this stage I cannot explain why, which is frustrating!
40
I think David Evans has done some real and important science with his theory even if it turns out he is not 100 percent correct. Certainly, it shows the “consensus” of “has to be CO2 as we can’t think of anything else” to be erroneous. There are plenty of ways the earth’s climate could vary naturally besides CO2 increase or decrease.
132
Earth’s climate does not vary at all according to CO2 increase or decrease.
Even if the unproven CO2 back radiation does have an influence it is offset by negative feedbacks.
The influence of CO2 has not an cannot be measured. We have had a 300% increase in anthropogenic emissions since 2000, yet we had “the pause” and we see zero spike in measurements of atmospheric CO2, it has continued to rise steadily just as it has since measurements began.
93
Common sense won’t get you a job at the IPCC.
72
Or anywhere else in these days of political correctness. 🙁
41
David your seeking of truth in science in todays world is wonderful. Pondering the roll of the sun in our forever changing climate is a mammoth task. William at 8:14 said he was a mere engineer I to am a lowly engineer but have looked at this problem from a different angle. The music of the spheres and their harmonics most likely give rise to the 11 years solar cycle, that said the intensity of the solar cycles and the other very periodic intensities seem to be a product of our position in our little galaxy.
The force that varies by position in our galaxy is the missing 95% dark energy ( there is no dark matter) it can manifest itself as magnetism our X-rays as experiments I have been involved with show.
This dark energy recycles continuously through out the galaxy into the suns then out through the planets. It enters mainly at the poles and exits at the equator in a band 30 degrees north and south hence our tropics. The magnetic variation on the sun and the planets is a direct result of the variation of the amount of this energy received. It warms the planet from within thus the delay, the stuff like cloud variation etc is our thermostat varying with the suns activity. 4.5 billion years in cold space and our core is molten with active volcanoes, hints at the true source of energy. Just an engineer thinking out loud.
110
Dark energy – the anti-node to energy’s node in this 3D universe’s resonant cavities?
20
From Jasper Kirkby’s paper, the graph relating NH temperatures to solar variability is on page 3:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.1938v1.pdf
20
Does Earth’s albedo follow the 11/22 year cycle?
Is it based on Cloud Cover?
20
All of this is based on cloud cover.
The Little Ice Age was due to more cloud cover. The late 20th century warming was due to less cloud cover.
This in turn is due to cosmic rays. The more cosmic rays, the more cloud cover and visa versa.
This in turn is due to sun spot activity. The Little Ice Age was dominated by very few sun spots, which allowed more cosmic rays to enter the atmosphere.
Cosmic rays ionise aerosols in the atmosphere, making them stick together to form particles large enough for water to condense on. Clouds do not form without aerosols.
70
We don’t know this. Cold means lower humidity, usually less cloud, consequently these periods mean drought, and lower rainfall. Every drought and colder phase I’ve been through the sky has been less cloudy. It also depends where you are.
20
I do believe you need to think a little more about what you are saying 🙂
10
We don’t know it. You may be making unnecessary assumptions, and should reconsider a “simple” mechanism of cloud and albedo modulation, as a colder phase commences.
Just because cloud and precipitation will occurs during the cool down and feeds back into cooling and albedo changes, that can help get us into and accelerated into a colder phase, but this does not mean that it will stay cloudy as % precipitate water in the atmosphere declines with T fall.
At some point T stabilizes, and I’m sure you understand that % water concentration is a mirror of ocean T and its moisture release.
So during the actual cool down cloud may slightly exceed normal cover %, due to the slow cooling, but once already cooled, given the mirrored low-lag response of vapor release, there’s no clear reason to expect greater cloudiness to continue. Do tracks in cloud chambers remain a permanent ‘cloudiness’ if water saturation is not high enough to retain the ‘cloud’?
Then the ‘cloud’ nucleation does not grow, like a jet creating visible contrails – where humidity is too low the contrails disappear after just a few seconds. Saturation or near saturation is required to obtain clouds forming behind the jet.
So it’s not a sure thing that there will be more cloud cover once the cold is here, and ocean heat diminishes accordingly, so vapor input equilibrates with T.
In other words, ‘X’ may not be clouds. David is effectively saying it isn’t clouds, that it’s a thermostat is the Sun and the clouds during the cooling, that pushes along the cooling, as a symptom of the solar-earth thermostat, ‘X’, being lower.
The clouds, humidity and precipitation maybe a symptom of X, but if X decreases then the cloud symptom equilibrates (rains and snows out) and cloud cover and saturation levels will equilibrate to lower T conditions as well and where’s the added cloudiness, or a clear capacity for cosmic rays to make and sustain cloud formation at a higher than typical % cover?
Cloud cover accentuated by Svenmark’s hypothesis may not be X, it may just be one endogenous symptom plus cloud during COOLING, another internal symptom of solar changes, called for sake of this argument in #23, consolidated X.
So we don’t know that cloud is what keeps it cold for 50 years, or that cloud cover will be higher than now, when cold, it may in fact be lower for many decades. The cold phases are not just about growth rates lowering and growth periods shortening, it is also about lower rainfall. Annual snow fall in Antarctica is low despite being surrounded by ocean because even when saturated there’s still not a lot of perceptible water in the cold air. Why rainfall in the topics is so heavy.
i.e. effect is not necessarily cause either for the heating cycle (less cloud) or the cooling (more cloud), that’s what ‘X’ means.
We can rationally assert that cloudiness will be a key feature (not cause) of a solar-originated X reduction, leading to an actual cooling phase, in which cloud formation is promoted for a few decades.
Once cooled, we do not know the little ice age was cloudier than now, that is an assumption.
It may be that X was lower, so it was colder, due to Earth being unable to warm much, even if cloud cover equilibrated with global T (i.e. less tendency to saturation) and returned to former prosaic cloud cover % levels. Or lower levels even.
So it’s the humidity level that makes the difference and recreates the capacity to warm (which also creates cloud, btw), and that means the ocean has a chance to warm again, and that can only (very slowly) occur once more, if a factor like X, rises once more.
Hence the slow rise out of Little Ice Age … and more evaporation in colder global conditions also means more clouds. So it’s not even clear that the heating necessarily involves less clouds, just that its location and the winds and currents will change, and snow and ice albedo will reduce (but more water in air means higher snowfall more often, so even that’s not so clear).
There’s too much we don’t know to presume LIA was caused by cloudiness, or maintained by cloudiness, or even more prevalent after the cooling itself had stabilized or oscillated at a lower global average T level.
I don’t understand how being assertive about that LIA assumption can be justified.
50
AC: Albedo data is really sketchy and disputed, and does not go back far enough. See post 10, which does the best it can with what is generally agreed upon and references what there is.
10
“Albedo data is really sketchy and disputed”
Albedo itself is really sketchy and disputed. Astronomical albedo is the percentage of incident ‘visible’ EMR from the primary reflected (scattered) into the hemisphere with the primary at its apex. Atmospheric (mie), cloud and surface scattering in the direction of the opposing hemisphere is never part of “albedo”! Such other reflection is the reason the Moon is still visible even when totally eclipsed by the Earth.
04
Hypothesis X…Equatorial Anomaly…
These guys do realize that the planet rotates…Right?
Different velocities? Just facts…
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/lalonde-joe/world-calculations.pdf
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/lalonde-joe/world-calculations-2.pdf
Cloud cover that possibly changes temperatures on the surface?
Lightening hits on the fastest rotation and much weaker as you go to the poles…unless pushed up by low pressure storms?
When will they study facts?
Oh right, they get paid for hypotheses as what is pushed in our education system.
30
I find it funny that when you travel in a vehicle on a clear calm day and you feel the wind, you can claim that it is windy outside…as in solar winds?
Never mentioned the exhaust gases the sun excretes too after it creates heat.
That comes in by orbital as the sun rotates too.
20
Russian scientists also investigating the solar influence on climate conclude that polar climates are especially affected by solar activity (various mechanisms).
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/03/12/sun-and-ice/
70
Yet they do not see how small an area this effects to the rest of the planet.
So few temperature data and measuring stations to the rest of the planet and any given summer slightly warmer than can claim end of the world massive heat rise.
30
Does anyone look at Nitrogen gas and how it freezes from the top down through the porous ice?
20
“Yet they do not see how small an area this effects to the rest of the planet.”
I question why you make such a statement. Surfaces at angles greater than 45° from normal to insolation (3/4 of the cross-sectional area), specularly reflect forward into the opposite hemisphere from insolation. At angles greater than 60° most all surface insolation is so reflected. This is not part of albedo and is not even considered by Climatastrophe folk! Yet the atmosphere over such surface radiates to space as much as any other atmosphere. Can you explain your statement?
04
Svensmark has already answered all of this conclusively, showing correlation in tens, hundreds, thousands and millions of years, along with experimental evidence to show the mechanism.
21
Svensmark’s cosmic ray hypothesis isn’t good enough because it fails to explain how cosmic ray variations affect the changing patterns of cloudiness such as in the changes in jet stream behaviour.
Simply asserting that there are more clouds when cosmic rays increase is not sufficient since the level of cosmic rays could simply be a proxy for the real force X.
50
Now you are grasping at straws. How much sunlight warms the surface is governed solely by cloud cover (and the amount of snow we have). Everything else flows from this.
21
It depends on the type of cloud and where its situated.
20
[…] David Evans What is Force x? The Sun could influence Earths climate through magnetic fields, solar particle […]
10
All very interesting. All seem to be coming to a conclusion, it’s space weather. Similar to, what out there can affect the earth, may influence the weather patterns on us.
But parts are still missing. Such as the influence of the magnetic circuitry, the influence of exhausted dust from the sun, the influences of other planets, inclination of our abode, and interstellar dust that feed our sun.
I remember from my school days seeing the dust clouds in space, and wondering why, we couldn’t see the local dust, and hearing no response.
30
The mechanism of adding heat from E-M is what needs to be described, and where the extra heating takes place nominated/included in the mechanism’s process.
X1 = Electric
X2 = Magnetic
20
It’s less clouds. The sun warms the surface. Very simple.
11
Mechanism of less clouds?
Yes, I know, but is there another implied in this X?
00
Simply speculating that there is some mysterious “force X” is meaningless. I think it’s a result of looking at things backwards.
The rule of thumb is that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one (yes, CO2 is indeed a simple explanation, but it doesn’t hold water).
Svensmark has shown conclusively the primary driver for temperature change. Everything else follows from this, including whatever David is seeing.
02
Did you read the post? We have assembled the known facts, and force X is the the simplest explanation of them. That has meaning.
Force X does not appear to be Svensmark’s cosmic rays. In the next post we hypothesize the next simplest explanation of the four observations mentioned in the post, two forces, N and D. One of those might be Svensmark’s cosmic rays.
Note in particular the delay. No delay in Svensmark’s correlations (though a delay of one sunspot cycle is easily overlooked, as one cycle overlays the next). At this stage it looks like cosmic rays are part of the answer, but not the whole answer.
42
Please show me graphs for 20th century, a thousand years, a million years and 50 million years which correlate whatever you are getting at.
Svensmark has already done this and the correlations are perfect.
I do not believe you are looking at a driver, but rather an after effect.
20
I think you are looking to correlate effects with the cause.
The only thing that actually warms the surface of the planet is sunlight. TSI has very little to do with this.
The only thing that controls how much sunlight reaches the surface are clouds and aerosols.
Now, unless you are going to show that somehow aerosols that reflect sunlight are created (or not), then you cannot ignore what Svensmark has demonstrated so conclusively.
A “delay” is only part of a response.
It’s all well and good to study the actual response of the planet to extra sunlight reaching the surface, I’m sure it’s more complex than just “temperatures rise”.
20
Maybe not so simple at all!
There’s lots more, a hell of a lot more implied in this” X” in the Suns total of “mass” excursions and ejections and its still unpredictable highly variable radiation spectrum output.
How it all fits together and then influences and ultimately controls the global weather and climate is the Holy Grail that I think David is trying to untangle.
Considering the forces involved and the highly variable solar radiation spectrum whose effects of the Earth’s entire grouping of “Spheres” none of which can exist without all the other Spheres,ie; lithosphere, geosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere and atmosphere, the solar forces and influences acting on and modifying and controlling that grouping of interlocking spheres that give our planet is basic and perhaps almost totally unique characteristics out of all the star systems, the nebulae and just remotely in the extreme, possibly all the galaxies in the known universe, are still barely touched on.
David has certainly taken on a hell of a task to try and find the root mechanisms by which the Sun dictates and ultimately controls our global systems of the interlocking, interacting, both complimentary and opposing global systems in what I can only describe as a collective of “spheres”.
The Jan 2013 NASA article below gives an outline of the now known but little understood variability in solar output and a bit of a run down on how so many apparently minor Solar created factors have a possible cascading effect and ultimately end up by dictating the incredibly complex interactions between all the numerous forces and feed backs both positive and negative that ultimately gives us the Global climate as we know it and which we are all so argumentative about as to why it is what it is.
How it all ultimately ties together still has everybody beat despite the many glib scientific refrains about how this and that climate wise actually is supposed to work according to the models.
As usual GIGO with climate models including the modellers own many latent and hidden biases, hidden in most cases even to themselves.
NASA >Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate
If you want to track down more information on a 2012 Workshop ;The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate: just click on “Contents” in the headline menu and those numerous “workshop” reports can be digested at leisure.
01
One other thing NOT considered is that our atmosphere is elastic too due to Nitrogen trying to squeeze back into it’s rested state of over minus 400 degrees.
30
Is that Celsius?
00
“The mechanism of adding heat from E-M is what needs to be described, and where the extra heating takes place”
That mechanism for thermal EMR is the spontaneous conversion of any incident flux to sensible heat by a surface with lower temperature and some emissivity. The work function of such conversion has no lower bound (as far as anyone can measure), so need not exhibit quantum effects such as emission of an electron or energizing a lattice defect. The indecent flux is absorbed as accumulated heat power.
This is noticeable mostly at very low temperature surfaces where the power needed to maintain such low temperature is already carefully monitored.
-will-
05
incident flux -sorry-
00
The high sensitivity of average global temperature to cloud changes is calculated (roughly) at http://lowaltitudeclouds.blogspot.com. As others have pointed out, Svensmark discovered a correlation between sunspots and low altitude clouds. Also, Schwartz determined the effective thermal capacitance of the planet which relates to what might be perceived as ‘time delay’. Keeping all this in mind and the computational mandate that average global temperature must change with the time-integral of the net forcing. Add to this an approximation of the net effect of ocean cycles (the cause of which remains somewhat mysterious) and you get a 97% match between calculated and measured average global temperatures. Including the effect of CO2 improves the match by 0.1%. The analysis that puts all this together is done at http://globalclimatedrivers.blogspot.com
[This was inadvertently caught by the spam filter.] ED
00
And hopefully in honor of Dr. David Evans. 🙂
Though history suggests it might work out differently.
20
I can fully appreciate the dilemma this represents. You have to try to figure out what’s causing something without being able to watch the actual causative mechanism. All you can watch are the symptoms of that mechanism at work.
How many of us have been there at one time or another in our daily work? I can only imagine the number is large.
I waited (figuratively) with my breath held for this to be published. And now I’ll be holding my breath again for the next part.
40
Murmansk open all year
O/T
How effective is the atmosphere on influencing the surface temperature compared to say the Ocean, can be seen by the effect on the port of Murmansk.
Even with air temperatures of -50 Celsius the port does not become ice bound.
This is significant for those performing coupled climate models certainly as it pertains to cause and effect.
60
On a light note, the whizzbo-gizmo diagram at the beginning of the post is a wonder to behold, although it is informative when squeezed. I’m quite taken with it.
Heath Robinson lives …
60
The magnetic field crops up again in the second paper listed, not paywalled. Global temps match magnetic field. R = – .99
http://notrickszone.com/2016/03/28/three-brand-new-peer-reviewed-papers-refute-ipcc-global-warming-science-climate-models/#sthash.QA0XQ3wO.uob8ys3Y.dpbs
21
Solar probe
Interestingly NASA are to launch a probe which will gather “space weather” data in July of 2018.
It is reported that it will fly within 7 million Km of the Sun’s surface.
40
It will have to be made of pretty stern stuff. At 7 million km it should be rendered incapable of doing much, should it not?
At that distance, 4,349,598 miles, it’s closer to the sun than Mercury (average 28.6 million miles) and very, very hot!
50
There is information on Solar Probe Plus here.
“Solar Probe Plus” on @Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Probe_Plus
At one point it will be the fastest object ever flown, 200 km per second.
20
Thanks, David.
If I read it accurately they intend to rely on the carbon composite material to delay warming of the spacecraft long enough to get the data they want. The Wiki article didn’t say how long that “insulating effect” would have to last but at that distance it would warm up fast and then it would be radiating heat toward the probe. I assume very little mass directly connecting the probe with its shield to minimize conduction so the major danger would be radiated heat.
It’s a bold idea. I hope it works. And I’m not being sarcastic or cynical.
00
It would be interesting if all the regular and semi-regular extraterrestrial but earth bound events were researched for their correlation/coordination with weather and climate events.
Maybe a few investigations of Quadrantids, Perseids, Orionids, Leonids, Geminids, etc (and more here) and if they too have periodicities that are multiples of the solar cycles.
Native histories from many cultures around the world hold such events to be meaningful predictors of the future.
Fossil records also seem to indicate such relationships.
00
David,
Speaking as a geologist who has spent time in a tunnel in the Greenland ice cap, I have long been critical of the idea that glaciers make good ‘coal mine canaries’ with respect to air temperatures. Glaciers are complex dynamic systems that are affected by many things, of which air temperature is only one. Not all glaciers are retreating. There is at least anecdotal evidence that those alpine glaciers that are not in retreat are located on the north slopes of the mountains they reside in. If it were air temperature alone that is responsible for glacial retreat, then all glaciers should be affected equally. On the other hand, if there has been a decrease in cloudiness, then those glaciers with southerly aspects should be experiencing a greater rate of melting, because of sunlight. I haven’t had the time to research this in detail (too many mysteries, too little time). However, I feel that you are spot on to hypothesize albedo to be an important factor in recently observed changes in global temperatures.
80
Exactly Clyde. Btw, my limited understanding of glaciers is that they tend to be more sensitive to local variations in rainfall than to local variations in temperature.
40
The Indian geologists responsible for monitoring the Himalayan glaciers in their purview also maintain that these glaciers are not retreating. Trying to obscure this empirical fact caused the IPCC a deal of embarassment some few years ago.
One can easily google these reports. They are continuous since the days of the British Raj, who displayed some quite rare sense then by setting up a continuous geological monitoring service.
62
David,
That is the point about their complexity. There has to be an accumulation of over 200′ of snow before the firn will turn into ice and it will start to flow plastically. Whether the ice increases in the zone of accumulation depends on snowfall, air temperature, ground (ice) temperature as modulated by cloudiness, and windiness because new snow can be blown away and windiness will increase sublimation. In the zone of wastage, the same factors will apply in the same way, but one is more likely to get warm rains that will melt the ice. Depending on the kind of surface the ice is moving over, shear moraines may bring rocks and gravel to the snout, insulating it from sunlight, high air-temperatures, and sublimation from winds. There is a fine balance between all the parameters that determines whether the snout advances or recedes. There can be record accumulations of snow in the zone of accumulation, yet if all the forces that contribute to wastage are high, the snout will recede. That is, the wastage exceeds the rate at which ice advances. On the other hand, a valley glacier can continue to move forward for a period of time even with reduced accumulation of snow in the zone of accumulation. That is why glaciers will alternate between advancing and retreating. Without comprehensive meteorological measurements along the full length of an alpine glacier, and especially valley glaciers, it is almost impossible to know why a particular glacier is doing whatever it is doing. It isn’t just air temperatures that cause or control glacial retreat.
20
I see the Sun’s magnetic filed intensity has been declining overall. Interesting to note that various people have discovered our Earth’s magnetic field intensity has also been declining consistently over recent times. Not sure if this has any bearing on all this – I suspect it does. Of course this is disturbing for a number of reasons, and if it continues it won’t be too long before the worst case scenario peddled by the AGW alarmists will pale into insignificance compared to the real effects of a declining magnetic field here..
30
Video: Earth’s Magnetic Field is Collapsing There is Evidence that a Flip is Already Occurring
Note comments at 2:16.
http://youtu.be/_EiUSs60lq4
12
Really enjoying David’s posts. Just makes me wish that I had more advanced mathematics.
00
Roy Hogue at #1.1.1.1, Kinky Keith and others–
O.T. I know, but the spiral arms of the galaxy were the subject of my Astrophysics Ph.D. (City University of New York), so I can offer the explanatory theory within which I worked. The problem of the spiral arms was simple to state, but devilish hard to solve, in fact stayed unsolved for half a century. Although the Galaxy has the shape of a rotating plate, it does not rotate as a plate would, the inner part rotates faster than the outer part. Yet the spirals that we see have just one or a few turns in them, although after a few billion years, the inner part of the Galaxy has gone through many more revolutions than the outer part. So if the spirals were a material entity, they would be far more “wound-up” than the systems we can see.
Many astrophysicists tried their hand at explaining this problem, usually imagining a great many separate particles (stars) moving under gravity. All failed. Until C.C. Lin, (born in China, Ph.D. Caltech, professor at MIT after that) approached it as a problem in fluid dynamics. He developed the concept of a “spiral density wave”, traveling around the Galaxy as a wave of alternating high and low density, sweeping up stars and dust as a water wave sweeps up water molecules and then leaves them behind. When the peak of the density wave strikes a region with plenty of gas and dust, it compresses them so that stars can be created. The wave passes on, but the stars light up to show where the wave has passed. The brightest stars are what we see, but they burn out more quickly than the other stars, so the lit arm of the spiral appears to rotate as new stars light up and the older stars darken.
80
Thanks
Funny I had gone into the bathroom,filled the basin and stirred it up. Needed a torch at a low angle to highlight waves/pressure ridges.
Looking for inspiration.
00
Thanks. That makes more sense than the old theory I was taught.
00
Others are looking for a ‘force x’, or as some are want to call it:
The Pacific Extreme Pattern
“McKinnon and her colleagues discovered Pacific Extreme Pattern by looking at summer weather patterns across the U.S. between 1982 and 2015. Their analysis focused on the hottest days, namely those above the 95th temperature percentile.
El Niño, or the El Niño–Southern Oscillation, is an occasional warming event in the Pacific Ocean that can initiate weather-related havoc across the U.S. Now, it has a new cousin. The Pacific Extreme Pattern.
By examining 38 years of weather, atmospheric scientists have identified an ocean temperature anomaly — the Pacific Extreme Pattern — that can predict droughts on the East Coast up to two months before they hit.”
20
Maybe David should consider global ocean circulation patterns coupled with increased warming due to additional greenhouse gases.
115
Additional greenhouse gases cannot warm the oceans.
925
But ghg can slow their cooling which allows the existing SW radiation to raise their temperature.
217
But the predominate GHG is water vapor, which forms shade and higher albedo. So on NET, no.
820
Dan,
I disagree that GHGs can slow the cooling of the oceans. If they try to do so all that happens is that the temperature gradient across the ocean skin increases its depth and/or changes its slope so that energy loss to the air above is maintained at the same rate as before.
The temperature that the oceans can maintain at a given level of insolation is determined by the weight of atmosphere bearing down on the surface because that determines the energy value of the latent heat of evaporation. At one bar pressure the energy taken up in evaporation is 5 times more than the energy required to induce evaporation (see ‘enthalpy of vaporisation’).
As long as more energy is taken up by the phase change than is required to induce the phase change no amount of additional radiation onto the top of the ocean skin can either warm the oceans or slow the rate of cooling.
922
The most important ghg is water vapor. At 100% humidity this ghg slows the evaporative cooling to zero. That is when the partial pressure of the water vapor reaches the saturation pressure of the liquid water at its temperature.
I don’t know what you mean by “At one bar pressure the energy taken up in evaporation is 5 times more than the energy required to induce evaporation (see ‘enthalpy of vaporisation’).” because the enthalpy of water vapor is only slightly greater than the enthalpy change with evaporation.
193
Dan,
“the molecules in liquid water are held together by relatively strong hydrogen bonds, and its enthalpy of vaporization, 40.65 kJ/mol, is more than five times the energy required to heat the same quantity of water from 0 °C to 100 °C (cp = 75.3 J K−1 mol−1). ”
from here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthalpy_of_vaporization
318
Saturation triggers clouds and precipitation … cooling.
217
There is a lot of clear sky between dry air and clouds where the ghg called water vapor reduces the net LW radiative cooling allowing the SW radiation to heat the liquid water more than with no ghg.
171
saturation –> albedo rise –> NET short wave input attenuation –> cooling
217
Maybe not Simon.
We’ve already ruled out that theory — the sensitivity model upon which it is based is comprehensively wrong because it omits a whole category of important feedbacks: http://sciencespeak.com/climate-basic.html (see the pictures in the synopsis).
57
David,
In the post you say that: “…..so it would appear that force X originates in the Sun, though it may act via agents on Earth…”
I believe that the agent that you are looking for is the Moon. My hypothesis is that variations in the way that the lunar tides massage
the Earth (via periodic increases of ~ 1 millisecond in the Earth’s rotation once every 13.66 days) are possibly synchronized with
long-term changes in the strength of the Sun’s magnetic field. I am not sure how this mechanism could produce a 11 year delay but
I am working on that. I will have a blog post out in a few days that will indirectly consider some of the details about the mechanism
that I think might be operating.
50
Quite possibly Ian. I am trying to keep an open mind and be as clinical as possible in this post and the next. In post 25 I discuss about seven possibilities, including references to your work (also in the upcoming paper).
It is possible that multiple causes are at work simultaneously, so some of those seven (and others!) are not necessarily independent, but working in concert on each other and the climate, so it is difficult to state definitely what is cause and what is effect.
I do know that there is more than just cosmic rays at work.
60
David says “so it would appear that Force X originates in the sun, though it may act via agents on earth”.
Ian Wilson replies “I believe the agent you are looking for is the moon”
As agent 86 would say, “Missed it, by THAT much”.
Comedy gold, guys.
00
David,
You a probably aware of this paper about the remarkable symmetry in albedo between the Northern
and Southern Hemispheres that is controlled by cloud levels in the Southern hemisphere – but just in case:
http://webster.eas.gatech.edu/Papers/albedo2015.pdf
Stephens, G. L., D. O’Brien, P. J. Webster, P.Pilewski,S.Kato,andJ.-l.Li(2015),
The albedo of Earth, Rev. Geophys., 53, doi:10.1002/2014RG000449.
Abstract
The fraction of the incoming solar energy scattered by Earth back to space is referred to as the planetary
albedo. This reflected energy is a fundamental component of the Earth’s energy balance, and the processes
that govern its magnitude, distribution, and variability shape Earth’s climate and climate change. We
review our understanding of Earth’s albedo as it has progressed to the current time and provide a global
perspective of our understanding of the processes that define it. Joint analyses of surface solar flux data
that are a complicated mix of measurements and model calculations with top-of-atmosphere (TOA) flux
measurements from current orbiting satellites yield a number of surprising results including (i)
the Northern and Southern Hemispheres (NH, SH) reflect the same amount of sunlight within ~ 0.2Wm2.
This symmetry is achieved by increased reflection from SH clouds offsetting precisely the greater
reflection from the NH land masses. (ii) The albedo of Earth appears to be highly buffered on hemispheric
and global scales as highlighted by both the hemispheric symmetry and a remarkably small interannual
variability of reflected solar flux (~0.2% of the annual mean flux). We show how clouds provide the
necessary degrees of freedom to modulate the Earth’s albedo setting the hemispheric symmetry.
We also show that current climate models lack this same degree of hemispheric symmetry and
regulation by clouds. The relevance of this hemispheric symmetry to the heat transport
across the equator is discussed.
20
Good to bring that up Ian. Given albedo modulation is almost certainly the main influence on temperature, this must be part of the answer, and a powerful clue. Don’t know what it means yet though.
20
Judith Curry commented on the paper that I cited by saying this:
The implications of this paper strike me as profound. Planetary albedo is a
fundamental element of the Earth’s climate. This paper implies the presence
of a stabilizing feedback between atmosphere/ocean circulations, clouds and
radiation. Climate models do not capture this stabilizing feedback.
https://judithcurry.com/2015/03/10/the-albedo-of-earth/
40
‘Backslider’ is correct in maintaining that less cloud equals higher temperature – but the influence of the ‘X Factor’, {as defined by Alex S. Gaddes in his work ‘Tomorrow’s Weather'(1990)} results in the dissipation or destruction of high level moisture – not it’s production,(Svensmark?)
Alex S. Gaddes found and defined the exact terrestrial ‘footprint’ of the ‘X Factor’, consisting of various overlapping, Solar-induced Orbital long and short term ‘Dry’ Cycles, that could be exacerbated by the Lunar Metonic Cycle ( eg. 2016) – and ameliorated by explosive volcanism, (in Australia’s case, mainly from volcanic activity in the Indonesian Archipelago.) It has been historically documented that a decrease in strength of the Earth’s Magnetic Field, results in an increase in volcanic activity and earthquakes.
It should be noted that these ‘Dry’ Cycles move longitudinally around the planet from East to West, with the Solar Orbit of the Earth’s Magnetic Field. Prevailing weather,(volcanic albedo and wind-blown dust,) moves from West to East, (Axial Spin.)
Perhaps current researchers,( such as David Evans and Stephen Wilde,) should consider the importance of Gaddes’ work in the continuing search for the exact nature of the ‘X Factor’.
An updated version of the above work (including ‘Dry’ Cycle forecasts to 2055,) is available as a free pdf from [email protected]
10
When will this be peer reviewed and published, David?
10
I’ve heard about the middle of the year.
20
Fine. I’ll read it when it’s published, then.
11
So how are we to interpret this? Is Ross being a peer-review snob, waiting until “official” peer-reviewers have done their thing? Or is he being covertly insecure and unable or unwilling to recognize that he might be a “peer” himself and apply his own experience and insight? Or is this an expression of moral cowardice — being unwilling to engage until the “authorities” have passed formal judgement?
Ross, this blog is peer review, to a level of thoroughness and excellence generally unavailable in science at large, and certainly rare or non-existent in the “climate science” establishment.
Let us not forget that at the frontiers of science, “peer review” is largely procedural, not conceptual, with new concepts and new integrations examined more from a political perspective than on a science-methodology basis. Religiosity in science is especially pernicious at those frontiers, even more-so when the “science” has already been heavily politicized and is on the defensive for violating the fundamental principles of modern science (as well as for demonstrated breaches of competence and integrity).
Please advise…
21
I don’t see much being altered as a result of blog review. I assume that David is keeping a version history and acknowleding the contributing reviewers to each revision.
Or maybe it was faultless from the start?
11
Gee Aye: I updated the basic-sensitivity-model paper, on how the AGW scare is due to architectural flaws in the forcing-feedback framework and how fixing them shows the increasing CO2 isn’t much of a problem, in October 2015 after the early part of this blog series (I got a chance to update the paper then, too late now). The feedback was useful, especially seeing what people did and did not understand, and what the most important issues were in the eyes of others. Each time I explain it, the explanation gets more accessible.
In this part of the blog series, on solar causation, most of the feedback seems to be around possible mechanisms, a topic that is specifically addressed by upcoming blog post 25. It will be interesting to see what people think of the list of possibilities, but already there are a lot of ideas being thrown out. The properties of force X above allow for a lot of mechanisms, but are not compatible with say cosmic rays (when we split it into forces N and D, in the next post, cosmic rays become a possibility).
All this feedback is also helping to shape the book I am writing. There is a growing list of acknowledgements of contributors, and explicit recognition that this theory is a product of this blog and a new way of doing science. The political circumstances of auditing the CO2 theory and figuring out what is mostly causing are very far from ideal, forcing us all to find new ways of making progress on the science.
41
Agree… your perspective is much more measured and attuned to what you can gain from this process. Getting feedback to help write for the audience and to rewrite for clarity is a great way to use this forum.
To be clear, I was not demanding that you do as I wrote in response to Alexander. My comment was what I would have expected if you had treated the blog process as Alexander proposed, which is not the case as you’ve described above.
01
I find it very curious that someone might think that I might think that David might think he is substituting blog-review for the usual academic “peer” (or pal) review. At least I think that is what someone thinks; it’s not clear.
We all know the problems that science at large has with traditional “peer review,” especially in trans-disciplinary investigations addressing complex non-linear open systems. My point was that blog review can be superior to peer review in those circumstances (even if it is often noisier and more contentious), and that David was taking advantage of real progress in how scientists talk with each other and diffuse (or de-fuse) the silo effect.
I think his goal is to advance the coherence of the science and not just to advance his status or the publishability of his paper (which are fine to do if the paper has integrity). This blog draws important expertise from outside the parochial halls of “climate science,” expertise that the climate science establishment systematically discounts, or outright suppresses.
10
Where does my meandering mind go? At the very smallest of levels what causes water vapor to condense? That is the seed of all clouds. What is that event? H20 is one of the most charged of molecules in the atmosphere. That is why water turning to ice expands. An electric field is a force that orients the molecules floating in air. Could changes in the electric field bias the opportunity of molecules to collide and give off energy as conduction or radiation. Would a small change in the electric field change the interaction of H20 molecules with aerosols in the atmosphere. Would a bias change in the molecules change the polarization of photons passing through the air by absorption refraction reflection defraction? Would polarization changes change condensation probabilities?
To me EDA is the obvious candidate for modulation of warming and cooling energy flows. How could force X drive albedo? Photons, photons, and electrons, electons, how little we know. Electric fields in tubes and transistors, what is the same and what is different?
It seems I am in a fog.
20
Tom, there are some possibilities there. Stephen Wilde has a fairly solid and convincing pathway:
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/is-the-sun-driving-ozone-and-changing-the-climate/
(Link Fixed) CTS
622
Thanks,David but oddly the link isn’t working for me.
Perhaps this ?
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/is-the-sun-driving-ozone-and-changing-the-climate/
20
Thank you both David and Stephen, I had missed that article. I am going to have to read it a few times.
10
Some red thumbers just don’t like my stuff yet haven’t the wit to advance any reasoning or evidence that goes against it.
319
Svensmark covered this, as the earth moves through our galaxy’s spiral arms.
20
More like through the arms of a central bank vampire squid …
13
Thanks for all the fish lol.
03
David–
Your point 3 states:
“3. Changes in force X occur half of a full solar cycle, or ~11 years on average, after corresponding changes in smoothed TSI (smoothed or averaged over at least an entire sunspot cycle).”
How could force X respond to a “smoothed” TSI? Surely, it can only sense the instantaneous value and respond (however slowly) to that.
10
We don’t know that Force X is “responding” to (smoothed) TSI — they might both be “responding” (to continue your reductionist linearization) to some other influence. And there may be a dozen (or maybe even a baker’s dozen) other factors simultaneously involved. We are seeking to sort out a matrix of interoperating emergences in a complex non-linear open system, not some sequential cause-and-effect lockstep response to one factor at a time. There are no “independent variables” to key off, however much some factors are stronger than others.
Your question is rooted in (mired in?) an obsolete paradigm; it’s time for us all to embrace a better way for experiencing the real world, and to that end I offer a little introduction to the neo-Taoism that our Modern paradigm has generously Peter-principled us to the brink of — The “Rules” of the Tao…
10
Lance: “Respond” is not quite the right word. Smoothed changes in TSI seem to flag or signal changes in force X. Smoothed TSI changes and then force X copies about 11 years later; more than that we don’t know for sure.
The temperature does not follow TSI in every detailed respect, even allowing for a smoothing effect of a CO2 trend with yearly ripple, so force X follows “smoothed TSI” rather than merely “TSI”.
20
My positiion has not chnaged over the years. The source of pockets of warming in oceans – which drive large weather patterns – can only come from within: the hot molten (and possibly nuclear reacting) earth’s core. The hot spot off tthe coast of Washington State, the el nino warm water that starts off central america and finally emerges at the surface in the westn pacific. All could be based on excess heat disipating along crutstal plates.
The 11 year delay makes sense if solar activity deploys magentic and/or gravitational waves that excite the Earths molten core. A burst of cyclic solar energy that is in harmonic synchronization with core fluid dynamics could create a slow building burst iof heat energy that takes 10-11 years to rise fom the region of the core and finally “esacpe” at the crust between plates.
Only this mechanism can privide the pulse iof heat energy seen in the ocean hotspots. If it was solar radiation into the air or water, it would affect plant and aninmal life as well has impart a burst if heat energy to the waters. These tell tales may exist – who knows. But if it was incident solar energy alone, why always the same spot on the. Earth? Why doesn’t the solar hotspots move.
Probably because they are anchored to crustal plate boundaries!!
52
Good point AJ. Hadn’t thought of that. If those geological hotspots are significant for the variations in global warming, that’s another possibility — please mention this again in post 25 on possible mechanisms, because I omitted it.
There is also the possibility of solar, Jovian, and/or lunar gravitational tugs on the molten material inside the Earth. Tides in the ocean are dominated by the moon’s gravity, so why not some effect on the molten interior? If the Jovian planets can exert enough gravity to affect the Sun (and there is some suggestion, e.g.google “McCracken”), why not our heavy molten mass in the Earth?
Anyone know any more on this?
21
David,
There has been work done to try to predict earthquakes based on tidal stresses in the crust. However, I don’t think that anyone has made a compelling case. That being the situation, I would think that there is even less probability of tidal forces affecting the mantle or core significantly. The sun is a different case because the hydrogen plasma is not as rigid as crustal rocks. Something else to consider is that while the viscosity of water is low, it is also unconstrained at the air/water interface. The mantle and core are, however, very viscous and constrained on all sides.
00
Yes, seems unlikely there could be anything there. But if the geological hotspots are involved in surface temperature variations…
20
This is a common misconception even among scientists David, the interior of Earth is not molten, almost at all.
Almost all of it above the core mantle boundary is solid crystalline rock.
We can tell where it’s solid or where it is liquid (or rather partially-melted rock) via seismic wave speed change as it passes through solids, to ‘mushy’ rocks (melt source areas partially melted) back to full solid again. This characteristically affects wave arrival times and allows mapping of melt source areas and location. The seismic wave propagation evidence is clear, almost all of the mantle and crust is crystalline rock.
There are also extruded and plutonic igneous rocks on the surface and from drill cores (formerly sub-surface solidified granitoids now weathered old mountain range core complexes, that formed deep down in the mid to lower crust, that uplifted greatly over time, due thermal difference, earthquakes and literally tens of km of overburden removal above them) evidence of intruded composition from the partial-melt sub-crustal sheet area, call the ‘asthenosphere’ transition (a seismic velocity transition) and inclusions bought up from upper mantle further below this, as well. Plus experimental details on the seismic propagation speeds through these compositions, to calibrate real world observation with, and detailed understandings of compositions to considerable depth below this as well and their correspondence to observed velocities.
Only very small areas of melt source rocks partially melt to create magma, most of it accumulates in the sub-crustal asthenosphere’s wave speed transition zone, but even in those areas of upper-most mantle/sub-crust the asthenosphere remains mostly layers of accumulated hot solid rock. Partial melting moves out of source areas to lower most crust, then slowly solidifies again, a small fraction may erupt of move into the lower crust, but most does not. Melted rock is a very small component of Earth.
There’s plenty of reason to question the notion that tidal effects imparts stirring effects on magma. There are regional thin parallel layers of perfectly flat-laying undisturbed layered minerals, that form and grow over millions of years in cooling large lower crustal plutonic emplacement magma pools.
These pools of magma were not being disturbed or mixed at all as they cooled, as the mineral layers are a result of fractional crystallization in a liquid allowing the chemically evolving crystals to settle out to the flat floor of the cooling liquid, as chemical and thus mineral separated layers as it cooled
Hence the strong flat layering also detected seismically, in the almost solid hot asthenosphere, crust to upper mantle interface.
The interior may be incandescent but it is also under extreme static pressures with depth, consequently the melting points of all rock is elevated, thus it remains almost all solid crystalline rock. Melting requires a pressure drop or intrusion of water (water lower melting points of minerals), and paradoxically not thermal increase. And such the pressured drop is associated with uplift.
But if we observe flat thin layers in cooled formerly uplifted plutons (in South Africa there are very thin high-grade mineral layers in a massive later uplifted already cooled pluton, where the exact same layer is mined over a distance greater than 100 kilometers across) then forget about tidal stirring of magma chambers.
I would avoid all tidal speculation of that sort it is irrelevant.
(but not necessarily irrelevant for EM heating, or an EM driven uplift mechanism, but just very unclear, and a conjecture land-mine to avoid treading on)
30
Well that’s probably true. However, when the world’s deepest hole was dug:
And
22
I didn’t find this that surprising. Their geotherm model assumptions were wrong.
What the found indicates there was a ‘wet’ plutonic melt intrusion below the area (they’re usually wet) and they drilled into the top of a hydro thermal complex and the volatiles driven off a melt below were driven higher into the crust above. That is normal in hydro thermal systems developing above plutons but the volatiles were structurally blocked and relatively insulated by that. So this was a site of on-going low-pressure and low-temp metamorphic alteration of country rocks above an apparent cooling pluton below. Hence altered, jointed, weakened and hotter rocks above it, which they’d drilled into the top of.
In other words, if it were not for the intervening impermeable rock unit (a horizontal basaltic sill) the water would have risen toward the surface freely already and altered the local geotherm and the subsurface geotherm models and its assumptions would have reflected this, and they would have them expected an elevated geotherm profile with depth. i.e. they would have decided in advance, to not drill there. So they were left to say to the boss, “Well, this was unexpected.”
Well yeah, but not really.
Also, they removed the drill for up to a year, several times during the drilling and cavities at high lithostatic pressure will flow closed any place they are drilled. This site isn’t unusual in that respect, so that should have been expected. But they lost the drill, so again are left to say, “Well that was unexpected.”
‘Incompetent’ altered rocks are chemically leached by water thus the crystal ionic bonds disrupted via individual cation leaching and replacement in silicates, dissolving in low-T solution so the rock strength was lowered from this (made structurally ‘incompetent’) thus crumbly. So a weak poorly bonded low competency rock closes faster under a given pressure, especially if hot and wet. Again they could say, “Well, this hot water and broken rock was unexpected.”, but it’s not, it conforms to what we know of low-T and low-P hydrothermal alteration.
The other thing is continental crust is 25 to 40 km thick in many places, so if you drill 15 kms you’re already around half to the asthenosphere. Why were they surprised by heat, water exolved from solidifying melts and hydrothermal alteration above?
If your major goal was instead “the deepest evah!”, rather than less glamorous pure research, this could be called ‘unexpected’.
But the more surprising and interesting point is the presence of copious exsolving hydrogen coming from the fluids as pressure dropped. I’d want to check other locations to see if it’s a general feature of mid crust levels elsewhere.
30
“The interior may be incandescent but it is also under extreme static pressures with depth, consequently the melting points of all rock is elevated, thus it remains almost all solid crystalline rock.”
How can the interior be “under extreme static pressure”, unless all external has the static characteristics of a fluid not a solid? How has your seismic wave theory been validated as to static characteristics of what may be implied by “all solid crystalline rock” at those depths?
-will-
07
What are the forces (field strength), and the resulting power flux (transfer) between differential field strength, that maintain the accumulation of power (ENERGY) at the Earth’s ‘core’?
Does anyone think that can be done by accumulation of the piss poor thermal electromagnetic flux intercepted by the cross sectional area of this Earth from any and all directions? The Sun and the four Jovians are loosing energy at a great rate (power). Earth may be a recipient of some of that power through transfer of angular momentum from some or all other bodies!
All the best! -will-
07
Mentioned this further up thread, the earths heat comes from within, the sun and its moods vary the temp, a rampant sun and less heat escapes to space, the cloud cover and ozone variance is the earths thermostat, trying to maintain equilibrium. Oft in cycles the thermostat can not maintain the status quo and we have warm periods and cold periods. These cycles are most likely caused by the position of the giant planets, ice ages are large deviations and are most likely caused by our position in the galaxy. TSI does not vary enough to alter anything on earth, there is a huge electro magnetic connection that varies our albedo. The sun regardless of what the experts say is little understood, science can not even tell us why the corona is umpteen times hotter than the surface of the sun? Yet it would seem that the science is settled on a trace gas causing thermogeddon.
12
Typing on i-pads is not my thing!
20
Very interesting discussion. The spin orbit coupling idea may well be at the heart of the solar cycle. The changes in torque experienced by the sun result in the tearing of the solar surface structure and appearance of sunspots.
Force X implies some linkage between the sun and the earth. There are at least two possibilities. The first is the that the earth is bathed in electromagnetic radiation, the magnetic field and charged particles all of which change throughout the solar cycle. Although the total radiation does not vary much, we know that individual components such as UV and microwave emissions vary considerably. The magnetic field reverses.
The components of earth’s atmosphere will react to the ionizing radiation and high energy particles to form free radicals and other charged species. Depending on the magnetic field and the species present, electrostatic attraction or repulsion will be enhanced or retarded to produce changes in atmospheric chemistry and larger size compounds through charge neutralisation and co-precipitation. Such processes could lead to cloud seeding and ultimately to changes in albedo.
The second possibility is that the spin orbit coupling gravitational effects could change ocean circulation perhaps via the moon with changes in ocean mixing producing heating or cooling. The thermal inertia and volumes involved could produce large time lags.
The two possibilities need not be mutually exclusive.
30
Very interesting. Is there known responses of earth’s magnetosphere to that of the sun?
10
Force X?
We’re doomed!
00
I don’t believe that David’s suggested mechanisms turn out to be the main connections between solar variability and its effect on Earth’s climate. In my view, too much emphasis is put on the radiative energy imbalance from albedo changes, TSI and cloud variability.
I suggest that there are two main connective drivers between solar changes and Earth’s climate.
The first connection. ENSO variability is in part driven by electromagnetic variability of the Sun. I have studied ENSO with the help of an ANN software I built and I have now solid evidence of what there are that drives changes in ENSO. The main driver is connected to the Lunar cycles which is responsible for the bulk part of ENSO variability and acts like an irregular heart beating driver of ENSO.
On this lunar driver another driver is superimposed and that is from variations in the Sun. I have found that changes in Earth’s magnetic field and changes in the solar wind correlates with ENSO. By combining Lunar cycles and impact from these Sun induced factors I’m now able to make longtime good ENSO forecasts. I’m going to publish my result in a scientific publication, but this is going to take some time. Generally speaking, when the electromagnetic activity of the Sun is weak, then the ENSO index tend to be lower with weaker and fewer El Niños and more La Niñas. When the activity is stronger, the opposite is true. But how could variations in the Sun affect ENSO variability? Well, we now know that when the Sun is weak, then the jet stream tends to become waiver and to move closer to the equator.
An indirect effect from this is that because the Earth’s atmosphere must keep its angular momentum constant, this affect the direction and strength of the trade winds in the tropics. It is through these changes in the trade winds that the Sun can affect ENSO. The easiest mechanism to change the global sea surface temperature SST and thus the global air temperature is through redistribution of water with different temperatures via sea current changes. Water has many times greater heat capacity than air. ENSO is such mechanism and also the most important. I believe that ENSO variability is a main driver of the 60 year global temperature cycle. ENSO is mainly driven by mechanical forces which work from outside Earth’s internal weather dynamic.
The second connection. This is not anything I have found described by others. Maybe it is because it is to obvious and also it is obvious for me because I was born next to the Arctic Circle. But, when in winter when there is high pressure with clear skies, then the temperature drops and much of the heat near the ground disappears straight out into space.
Despite it is still taboo by climatologist to look for electromagnetic solar connections, we now know that the Sun has direct effect on effects such as sudden stratospheric warming, NAO, AO and the jet streams. I suggest that one important climate driver of cooling during weak solar periods is this solar connection which creates more high pressure periods and sends large amounts of clear cold air into North America and Eurasia. The same happens to a lesser degree in the Southern Hemisphere. This, I believe, was an important factor during solar minimum such as the Maunder Minimum and the Dalton Minimum.
20
Per, on the first connection. It is well known that ENSO leads global temperature in the short term, with a 6 month delay (the higher frequency components of global temperature are those of ENSO, but six months delayed). Force X drives global temperature; therefore it also drives ENSO. Indeed, the original model I put out in 2014 show TSI explaining ENSO variability as well as it explains global temperature.
The correlations you have found are presumably other manifestations of force X. Force X is simply defined as per this post as the minimum required to fit the known observations.
If you can forecast ENSO then you can forecast global temperature and you have figured out what force X is. Well done! When are you publishing? What datasets are you using to forecast ENSO?
Have you seen Stephen Wilde’s jet stream explanation here?
“ENSO is mainly driven by mechanical forces which work from outside Earth’s internal weather dynamic.” Yep, sounds like force X.
The second connection you mention may be involved with the jetstream link above, over the balance between polar and equatorial tropopause heights.
Please let me know how you are going Per. If indeed you can predict ENSO from factors outside the Earth, you are well advanced on cracking the climate problem.
46
A simple conservation of energy equation, employing the time-integral of sunspot number anomalies and an approximation of the net effect of all ocean cycles achieves a 97% match with 5-yr smoothed measured average global temperatures since before 1900. Including the effects of CO2 improves the match by 0.1%
11
I can say this. I have been consulting with Nils-Axel Mörner about my results and the plan now is that I’m going to make a presentation in London in September. I’m working with the MEI index.
The functionality of my programs are almost done, but there are things I need to do before I publish this in a scientific paper. I recently upgraded from a Win XP computer to a faster Win 10 and I’ve just upgraded my programs from vb6 to vb.net. This seems to have worked seamlessly. The first step and final software change is that I’m going to improve the solar factors’ signal to noise ratio. I know that there are important improvements to be made on this.
My goal is then to make as good as possible forecasts of ENSO for several years into the future based on an ensemble of results. Of course I can’t know the exact solar parameters, I only know the trends. Nevertheless, the results should be very good as the effects from the lunar cycles are the dominant force. After that I’m going to publish my result scientifically. I expect my result to represent a paradigm shift for ENSO research.
Yes, I’ve seen Stephen Wilde’s jet stream article.
10
Good, looking forward to it Per. Please email me when you go public ([email protected]).
00
Sure, I’ll do that.
10
‘The main driver is connected to the Lunar cycles which is responsible for the bulk part of ENSO variability and acts like an irregular heart beating driver of ENSO.’
You maybe interested in the work of Kevin Long (The Long View) and Ken Ring.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2012/05/bad-moon-rising/
02
David,
Here is my post describing the relationship between the lunar tidal cycles and the Earth’s LOD.
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2016/03/there-is-natural-Gleissberg-like-cycle.html
In this post, I am claiming that there is natural 88.5 year Gleissberg-like cycles in the lunar tidal
stresses placed upon the Earth as the Moon crosses the Earth’s equatorial plane every
13.66 days.
I will eventually show that there is also a natural 208 year de Vries-like cycle, and a 2300 Hallstatt-like
cycle as well.
In other words, the Lunar tidal stresses placed upon the Earth through abrupt changes in the
Earth’s LOD (every 13.66 days) show cycles that match the long term variations in the strength of the
Sun’s magnetic field.
00
“In other words, the Lunar tidal stresses placed upon the Earth through abrupt changes in the Earth’s LOD (every 13.66 days) show cycles that match the long term variations in the strength of the Sun’s magnetic field.”
Is this some theoretical “Sun’s magnetic field”, or where is such a magnet field measured and attributed to the Sun?
All the best! -will-
08
Thanks Ian. Will be mentioning your work in post 25.
00
[…] http://joannenova.com.au/2016/03/new-science-23-four-mysteries-and-the-force-x-hypothesis/ […]
00
Will Janoschka,
The Be10 and C14 proxy records spanning the last 9400 years shows that the Sun’s magnetic field has varied in strength
with periods characterized by:
88 year Gleissberg cycle
208 year de Vries cycle
940 year Eddy Cycle
and
2300 year Hallstatt cycle.
There are some other lesser cycles at:
130 years
150 years
356 years
442 years
504 years
and 708 years
I have found all of these cycles in the lunar tidal record.
10
Thank you Ian,
“The Be10 and C14 proxy records spanning the last 9400 years shows that the Sun’s magnetic field has varied in strength
with periods characterized by:”
I was hoping for the details of how the “Sun’s” magnetic field (strength) was measured within one Earth radius of the Earth’s permeability and how that is distinguished from the Earth’s magnetic field strength at that same location.
I take it that you are ‘promoting’ the concept that that the local Be10 and C14 production records are ‘only’ influenced by the Sun’s magnetic field rather than from Davids force X, whatever that turns out to be, or not! I am not trying to pick apart your work, which I observe as nicely done from available data.
All the best! -will-
00
Will Janoschka,
From my limited understanding, the type of cosmic ray particles that produce C14 and Be10 in the Earth’s upper atmosphere mostly originate from outside the solar system.
This means that the limiting factor which determines their prevalence is the overall strength of the Sun’s magnetic field.
There is some question about the influence of climate on the deposition rate of the C14 and Be10 that are produced by the cosmic rays. The general presumption is that this is not a big effect.
00
Again Ian thank you for your kind reply!
“From my limited understanding, the type of cosmic ray particles that produce C14 and Be10 in the Earth’s upper atmosphere mostly originate from outside the solar system.”
OK, lotsa crap from over yonder! But lotsa crap from Solar CMEs also! What is the difference?
“This means that the limiting factor which determines their prevalence is the overall strength of the Sun’s magnetic field.”
Why? To the Earth, is not the Earth’s magnetic field predominant? Both can deflect the nasties to else-where/when.
“There is some question about the influence of climate on the deposition rate of the C14 and Be10 that are produced by the cosmic rays. The general presumption is that this is not a big effect.”
Climate? can anyone even define ‘climate’? Likely the nasties determine ‘climate’ whatever (climate/nasties) may possibly represent.
ALL the best! -will-
02
I’m a biologist but I enjoy your conversations.
If 239 watts/sq.meter is coming in and 239 watts/sq.m is leaving in OLR, it seems the only way the atmosphere can warm is to delay the outgoing radiation such that the photons do a little more work on the way out. Doesn’t this say that there must be a little more energy developed in the atmosphere than the 239 watts/m^2 because some is expended on the way out, bouncing around on water molecules, whatever.
What can happen 11years ago that causes the atmosphere to now generate and subtract a little more energy? so that we still have the 239 watts coming in and out? Don’t the gases have to change or the thickness or pressure or velocity of the air mass?or the shading? It seems unlikely that the surface of the earth would change in 11 years–as in an albedo change from that surface.
10
William, you misunderstand. It’s not atmospheric warming that we care about (necessarily), its the surface — where we live.
The Earth is a complicated radiator, with four main radiating surfaces (post 6). Increasing CO2 changes the balance between the various radiating surfaces, such that the surface emits more OLR because it is warmer. More CO2 cools the CO2 emitting layer, so it emits less CO2, so the other layers have to take up those emissions.
Delays have nothing to do with the greenhouse effect — radiation changes take place in less than a second, and photons move at the speed of light.
The 11 year delay after changes in TSI from the Sun is from an electric or magnetic or gravitational effect affecting clouds 11 years later, i.e. not in synch with TSI changes.
00
It is interesting perhaps that the Solar cycle is influenced by our solar system’s other planets (those with electromagetic fields) such as Jupiter and Saturn. However the most intriguing part of this post by Jo and Dr Evans is the “delay”. 😀
00
“It is interesting perhaps that the Solar cycle is influenced by our solar system’s other planets (those with electromagetic fields) such as Jupiter and Saturn. However the most intriguing part of this post by Jo and Dr Evans is the “delay”.”
This could be an apparent delay and may turn out to be different phases of forces somewhat repetitive, with different appearances. Perhaps a name for things that seem repetitive but are not quite cyclic, in the fixed frequency/time interval sense may be good, so folk do not get the wrong idea of what is still unknown.
There may be beat frequencies/intervals between the Earth, its Moon, and the four Jovians, At the same time a planet cannot remain synchronous with any other, as destructive resonances would be likely.
Please remember that electric (Coulomb) fields, magnetic (Gaussian) fields, and electromagnetic (radiative) fields are all quite distinct. Only the radiative fields imply some required phase coherence between the electric and magnetic. The gravitational fields bound by the conservation of momentum (zero displacement of inertia) still remain quite viable. The moment arms of Neptune and Uranus are huge!
All the best! -will-
13