Archive for the ‘Geomagnetism’ Category

Image

EVIDENCE OF LENGTH OF DAY (LOD) BIDECADAL VARIABILITY
CONCURRENT WITH THE SOLAR MAGNETIC CYCLES
Milivoje A. Vukcevic M.Sc
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01071375/document

Abstract: Number of factors ranging from global atmospheric and oceans circulation to the plate tectonic movements affects the length of day (LOD) on different time scales. Existence of a coincidental or causal correlation between the solar magnetic oscillations and the secular LOD changes is demonstrated.

 

(more…)

A strange effect is months of delay of cosmic rays from solar sunspot cycle, not constant. This also has implications for 14C.Image

A plot of the two datasets taken from a live spreadsheet implementing data delay, set here for zero. Unfortunately the data tends to cause filter ringing and is impulsive anyway so this is not up to my usual standards of fidelity. A line plot doesn’t help but is clearer. Correlation peaks at r2 = 0.8, neutron data is inverted, data is normalised and made more comparable.

I’ve been meaning to post this for some time but the saga unfolding at Jo Nova with “a theory” where currently I have no idea whether it is reasonable might link.

(more…)

From the Hockey Schtick, via the GWPF, news of a new paper supporting the Svensmark hypothesis:

NEW PAPER CORROBORATES SOLAR-COSMIC RAY THEORY OF CLIMATE
10/04/14 The Hockey Schtick

cloudsA paper published today in Environmental Research Letters corroborates the Svensmark cosmic ray theory of climate, whereby tiny 0.1% changes in solar activity are amplified via the effect on cosmic rays and cloud formation, which in turn may control global temperatures.

The authors find cosmic ray variations due to changes over solar cycles may have as much as 10 times larger effect than previous studies have estimated. The paper also finds that a tiny 0.2C temperature increase increases the cosmic ray induced cloud condensation nuclei by around 50%, thus acting as a natural homeostatic mechanism. 

(more…)

Here we have  two fine scientists who have written an excellent and easily readable paper, well supported by the evidence they cite.

2400-year cycle in atmospheric radiocarbon concentration: bispectrum of 14C data over the last 8000 years
S. S. Vasiliev and V. A. Dergachev

Received: 5 September 2000 – Revised: 6 August 2001 – Accepted: 21 August 2001

c14-halstatt

(more…)

This solar reconstruction uses a combination of 14C and “archeomagnetic field models” (Licht) to show strong solar activity modality.

Image

Fig 3 from paper

Evidence for distinct modes of solar activity
I. G. Usoskin, G. Hulot, Y. Gallet, R. Roth, A. Licht, F. Joos, G. A. Kovaltsov, E. Thébault and A. Khokhlov
A&A 562 L10 (2014)
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201423391

(more…)

image

Around ten days ago I made an enquiry to Copernicus (the innovative science unpublishers) asking when they would be billing me for the order I made at the end of 2013. It turned out they had forgotten to do so, and they provided an invoice for a fresh order on Jan 27, 10 days after they axed the journal.

(more…)

An Unbelievable Decision
Nils-Axel MÖRNER
Handling editor of the Special Issue of PRP

wpid-PRP-Censured.jpgThe idea that the planetary motions affect and control the solar variability is old, but in the stage of an unproven hypothesis. In recent years major advancements have occurred and in 2013, it seemed that time was ripe for a major, multi-authored, reinvestigation. Therefore, a Special Issue of Pattern Recognition in Physics was devoted to: “Pattern in solar variability, their planetary origin and terrestrial impacts”.

The volume includes 12 separate research papers and General Conclusions, co-authored by 19 prominent scientists. Indeed, they agreed that the driving factor of solar variability must emerge from the planetary beat on the Sun, and by that its emission of luminosity and Solar Wind both factors of which affect the Earth-Moon system.

(more…)

prof. Giovanni P. Gregori - Docente di Fisica Terrestre e ricercatore CNR all'Istituto di Acustica O.M.Corbino C.N.R. di Roma. 1963-2001  Ricercatore CNR all'IFA/CNR (Istituto di Fisica dell'Atmosfera), Roma, con l'incarico di studiare le Relazioni Sole-Terra. Le aurore polari ed il geomagnetismo (1963-1975) lo hanno portato ad un modello di magnetosfera (1970-1972) considerato uno dei suoi migliori risultati.

prof. Giovanni P. Gregori – Docente di Fisica Terrestre e ricercatore CNR all’Istituto di Acustica O.M.Corbino C.N.R. di Roma. 1963-2001 Ricercatore CNR all’IFA/CNR (Istituto di Fisica dell’Atmosfera), Roma, con l’incarico di studiare le Relazioni Sole-Terra. Le aurore polari ed il geomagnetismo (1963-1975) lo hanno portato ad un modello di magnetosfera (1970-1972) considerato uno dei suoi migliori risultati.

One of our merry band of collaborators on our Special Edition of Pattern Recognition in Physics, the journal axed by executive officer Martin Rasmussen of parent publishing house Copernicus, and castigated by science blogger Anthony Watts, is Italian physics professor Giovanni P. Gregori. here’s the letter he sent to Rasmussen:

Martin Rasmussen, Esq.,
Copernicus Publications.

Ref.: Pattern Recognition in Physics

Dear Mr. Rasmussen,

following the letter by the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, I guess I have to spend a few words on this unfortunate controversy.

I like to begin and recall a few statements by Jules-Henri Poincaré (1854-1912).

“La liberté est pour la Science ce que l’air est pour l’animal”
[“Freedom is for Science much like air for an animal”
Dernières pensées, appendice III]

“La pensée ne doit jamais se soumettre, ni à un dogme, ni à un parti,
ni à une passion, ni à un intérêt, ni à une idée”
[“Never submit thought to any dogma, or to any party,
or to any passion, or to any interest, or to any idea”]

“La pensée n’est qu’un éclair au milieu d’une longue nuit.
Mais c’est cet éclair qui est tout”
[“Thought is like a lightning in the middle of a long night.
But this lightning is everything”]

Science is made of ideas, both correct and wrong. How can we assess what is correct if this is not compared with what is wrong? Observations, models, extrapolations, forecast, etc. are not science. They are only tentative applications of science. But science is made of ideas.

(more…)

image

A conclusion and its implication in the summary paper was: because our scientific investigation leads us to the prediction that the Sun is headed into a protracted minimum, the warming forecast by the IPCC might not happen.

This has led to the journal being axed by the parent Publishing house Copernicus. The papers are still available at this link
Please download and disseminate them widely.

Heres the letter sent to Coordinating editor Nils Axel Mörner and chief editor Sid Ali Ouadfeul:

(more…)

chaos

First of all, this is not a theory – just a collection of observations in support of the novel idea that the Sun plays a key role in Earth’s climates, not only by means of irradiance but also by variations of magnetic flux.
(more…)

Image

Figure S1. A schematic diagram to explain how the mid-latitude surface pressure is influenced by IMF B in two stages… [full caption in supplement]

Figure from supplementary data. Note: to get your brain in. This is dealing with diurnal change, electric fields have an instant effect, 6MLT and 18MLT  means Magnetic Local Time[1].

The interplanetary magnetic field influences mid-latitude surface atmospheric pressure
M M Lam, G Chisham and M P Freeman
British Antarctic Survey, High Cross, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0ET, UK
Open access online at stacks.iop.org/ERL/8/045001

(more…)

The IPCC base their claims about how much warming is ‘in the pipeline’ on the rate that carbon dioxide is eventually removed from the atmosphere, the ‘e-folding time’. This is different to the time it takes for any emitted joe-average co2 molecule to be re-absorbed in the carbon cycle, and reflects the assumptions made about the way the carbon cycle operates.

The IPCC relies on the ‘Bern model, which was cooked up many years ago by Bert Bolin and other atmospheric scientists of the warmist persuasion. The Bern model makes assumptions which lead to a very long e-folding time of hundreds of years, a figure which has been disputed by several able researchers, and discussed here at the talkshop in previous posts.

Now talkshop co-blogger Tim Channon has made novel use of data which shows what has happened to the radioactive carbon 14 isotope carrying co2 levels since the atmospheric nuclear bomb tests of the early 1960′s. The results look like another hole below the waterline for the IPCC and the climate alarmists. – tb

Image

Figure 1

Image

Figure 2

Figures 1 and 2 are demonstrating both northern[1] and southern[2] hemisphere decay from a Dirac injection[3] of a test signal. The consequent effect is very close to perfectly linear, proportionality between pressure and effect of pressure over more than an order of magnitude of data variation (hence linear law). This seems to destroy IPCC claim of a non-simple law. Deviation is <1%

In addition the effect is a simple low pass filter on all kinds of atmospheric carbon dioxide. A later article might cover this in detail.

Note: this article is cross posted from the authors blog, discussion is probably more appropriate on the Talkshop. Some of the content has been the subject of wide discussion around the ‘net but not so far as I know here.  – Tim

(more…)

My interest was piqued yesterday when I thought it might be an idea to compare Tim Channon’s simple model of solar variation with the Carbon 14 record. Carbon 14 is thought to be an indicator of solar variation. Wikipedia has this plot:

Carbon14_with_activity_labels

Wikipedia plot of Carbon 14 related to solar activity events. Caution: this is completely wrong – Do not re-use

The problem with this plot, as with so many things in climate science, is that it is upside down and completely wrong.

(more…)

Magnetic storm June 29 2013

Posted: June 29, 2013 by tchannon in Geomagnetism
Image

Image

Seems there was a severe space weather storm early hours 29th June 2013, Universal Time.

h/t Vukcevic at WUWT

(more…)

This is an essay written some years ago by the late Tom Van Flandern  which was included in his book ‘Dark Matter, Missing Planets & New Comets’. Tom, who worked for many years at the U.S. Naval Observatory, was an out of the box thinker who covered a wide range of astronomical topics, many of them well outside the mainstream. His methodology was a bit similar to my old dad’s approach to cryptic crosswords. “The clue doesn’t give you the answer, but it helps confirm you got the right answer once you’ve got it”. Leif Svalgaard says he was a crank, which in my view means he’s well worth a read. I think this article, tied in with his other solar system formation concepts, deserves to be republished for the assessment and re-appraisal of the talkshop cognoscenti and the interested visitors here.

mercury-300x300Let us examine in detail what the consequences would be of assuming that Mercury originated as a satellite of Venus. If that were so, we might presume that Mercury formed in close orbit about Venus, perhaps by fissiona. But Mercury is four and a half times more massive than the Moon. So the interchange of energy through tidal friction between Venus and Mercury would have been enormous. Mercury’s original spin would have been halted fairly rapidly by Venus, leaving Mercury spinning once per revolution around Venus, always keeping the same face toward Venus, as for our Moon.

(more…)

all.7z 1061565012

cc: ‘The Team’
date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 11:21:57 -0400
from: Gabi Hegerl
subject: Re: POLL ON SOON-BALIUNAS
to: “Michael E. Mann” <mann@virginia.edu>, Tom Crowley

I have seen Balliunas give a talk quite a long while ago, unfortunately, I

cannot recall what the meeting was, it was some kind of global change meeting,

more than 5 years ago.

I do recall that I was thoroughly unimpressed though. There was not much real

exchange between her and the audience. I remember that Jerry North was there

also, because we exchanged amazement in differences in style of approach between the
detection side of work he and I presented, and her – well lets say

more-qualitative style…

Gabi

At 11:07 AM -0400 8/12/03, Michael E. Mann wrote:

Thanks Tom,
The impact ratings you provided seem to be on a different scale from the ones I’ve seen,
but the relative magnitudes and ordering appear about right (in the ratings I’ve seen,
CR comes in at 0.4!).

(more…)

Hat tip to Paul Vaughan [and A C Osborn on comments], who spotted this interesting new article at NASA’s website:

March 8, 2013: Using data from an aging NASA spacecraft, researchers have found signs of an energy source in the solar wind that has caught the attention of fusion researchers. NASA will be able to test the theory later this decade when it sends a new probe into the sun for a closer look.

The discovery was made by a group of astronomers trying to solve a decades-old mystery: What heats and accelerates the solar wind?

nasa-wind

The solar wind is a hot and fast flow of magnetized gas that streams away from the sun’s upper atmosphere.  It is made of hydrogen and helium ions with a sprinkling of heavier elements.  Researchers liken it to the steam from a pot of water boiling on a stove; the sun is literally boiling itself away.

“But,” says Adam Szabo of the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, “solar wind does something that steam in your kitchen never does.  As steam rises from a pot, it slows and cools.  As solar wind leaves the sun, it accelerates, tripling in speed as it passes through the corona. Furthermore, something inside the solar wind continues to add heat even as it blows into the cold of space.”

Finding that “something” has been a goal of researchers for decades.  In the 1970s and 80s, observations by two German/US Helios spacecraft set the stage for early theories, which usually included some mixture of plasma instabilities, magnetohydrodynamic waves, and turbulent heating.  Narrowing down the possibilities was a challenge. The answer, it turns out, has been hiding in a dataset from one of NASA’s oldest active spacecraft, a solar probe named Wind.

(more…)

My thanks to Nils-Axel Morner for sending me a copy of his new paper ‘Solar Wind, Earth’s Rotation and Changes in Terrestrial Climate’ published yesterday in Physical Review & Research Inernational. This is a great paper, full of interest, drawing together disparate dynamic phenomena into a comprehensible whole. Niklas is fully up to date with the latest research from Nicola Scafetta and the talkshop, incorporating planetary motion into the scheme encompassing the wider ‘frame of reference’ in which terrestrial climate change occurs. This is what will enable the new climate science to move beyond the constricted and constipated thinking of the current climate science mainstream.

morner2

 

(more…)

Looking for the origin of the idea that the Sun’s gravity diminishes as distance increases, I found this on Wikipedia:

Ismaël_Boulliau

Ismaël Boulliau
Astronomer
1605-1694

Ismaël Boulliau known as Bullialdus was a friend of Pierre Gassendi, Christiaan Huygens, Marin Mersenne, and Blaise Pascal, and an active supporter of Galileo Galilei and Nicolaus Copernicus. It is for his astronomical and mathematical works that he is best known. Chief among them is his Astronomia philolaica, (published 1645). In this work he strongly supported Kepler‘s hypothesis that the planets travel in elliptical orbits around the Sun, but argued against the physical theory the latter had proposed to explain them.[1] In particular, he objected to Kepler’s proposal that the strength of the force exerted on the planets by the Sun decreases in inverse proportion to their distance from it. He argued that if such a force existed it would instead have to follow an inverse-square law:[2]

As for the power by which the Sun seizes or holds the planets, and which, being corporeal, functions in the manner of hands, it is emitted in straight lines throughout the whole extent of the world, and like the species of the Sun, it turns with the body of the Sun; now, seeing that it is corporeal, it becomes weaker and attenuated at a greater distance or interval, and the ratio of its decrease in strength is the same as in the case of light, namely, the duplicate proportion, but inversely, of the distances that is, 1/d².[3]

Brilliant deduction, but then he dropped the ball. Wiki continues:

(more…)

Image

Figure 1

Quite often integrating data is useful.

In an odd moment I trivially integrated one of the results from a recent blog post, a casual look at Hadcrut 4. This produces a strange and unexpected result, strange because the structure of the shape is highly complex, ambiguous even though it looks fairly trivial. (I might write on this complexity later)

The data used was published as spreadsheet two of Talkshop article Met Office Hadcrut 4: solar linkage (supplemented copy linked at the end of the current blog article)

(more…)