Atmospheric pressure variations at extratropical latitudes associated with Forbush decreases of galactic cosmic rays

Posted: March 7, 2014 by tallbloke in climate, Clouds, cosmic rays, waves

A new paper in press at Elsevier finds air pressure changes linked to Forbush Decreases in the extra-tropics. These can affect the regime of blocking highs and the landfall of cyclonic weather systems. The paper marks a further step forward in understanding solar-terrestrial relations.

Atmospheric pressure variations at extratropical latitudes associated with Forbush decreases of galactic cosmic rays
I. Artamonovaa,a  S. Veretenenkoa,b
a St. Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg 198504, Russia
b Ioffe Physical-Technical Institute, St. Petersburg 194021, Russia


Changes of troposphere pressure associated with short-time variations of galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) taking place in the Northern hemisphere’s cold months (October–March) were analyzed for the period 1980–2006, NCEP/NCAR reanalysis data being used. Notice- able pressure variations during Forbush decreases of GCRs were revealed at extratropical latitudes of both hemispheres. The maxima of pressure increase were observed on the 3rd–4th days after the event onsets over Northern Europe and the European part of Russia in the Northern hemisphere, as well as on the 4th–5th days over the eastern part of the South Atlantic opposite Queen Maud Land and over the d’Urville Sea in the Southern Ocean. According to the weather chart analysis, the observed pressure growth, as a rule, results from the weakening of cyclones and intensification of anticyclone development in these areas. The presented results suggest that cosmic ray vari- ations may influence the evolution of extratropical baric systems and play an important role in solar-terrestrial relationships.

The study of block- ing event formation for undisturbed periods, i.e., the ran- dom (Monte Carlo simulated) 10 day periods with no Forbush decrease effects, showed that the frequency of these events amount to about 43%. Thus, Forbush decreases of GCRs seem to contribute to the intensification of blocking events at middle latitudes. In turn, the forma- tion of blocking anticyclones over the eastern part of the North Atlantic creates an obstacle for the movement of cyclones from the ocean to the continent. This results in the shift of cyclone tracks to the north, as they are forced to bend around the high pressure area, and we can see a statistically significant decrease of pressure at polar lati- tudes of the Northern hemisphere. Thus, the results of the synoptic analysis for the North- ern hemisphere showed that the pressure growth observed in the North Atlantic region in association with Forbush decreases is caused by more intensive formation of block- ing anticyclones. Indeed, blocking anticyclones are high and warm anticyclones which form from cold mobile anti- cyclones over the surface which is relatively warm for the season under study. For this reason they form most fre- quently over the eastern parts of the North Atlantic and Pacific, to the east of warm ocean currents (e.g., Matveev, 1991).

Thus, the presented results suggest the weakening of cyclones and intensification of anticyclone development at middle latitudes of both hemispheres associated with short-time decreases in the intensity of galactic cosmic rays. It is known that the formation and development of extra- tropical baric systems (cyclones and anticyclones) are determined by specific features of the thermo-baric field structure and temperature contrasts in the troposphere (e.g., Vorobjev, 1991). The detected effects allow us to sup- pose that Forbush decreases contribute to the changes in the structure of the thermo-baric field which provides more favorable conditions for anticyclone development. The obtained results suggest an important part of ionization changes for solar activity influence on the lower atmo- sphere dynamics. A possible mechanism of the effects observed in baric system evolution in the course of For- bush decreases may involve cloudiness/aerosol changes associated with variations of ionization and electric current density (Tinsley, 2008). These changes may result in latent heat release and changes in radiative forcing which, in turn, may influence the thermo-baric field of the troposphere.

3. Conclusions
In this work we carried out the investigation of the response of atmospheric pressure at the level 1000 hPa to Forbush decreases of galactic cosmic rays in both hemi- spheres for the events taking place in the Northern hemi- sphere’s cold period. A significant pressure growth with the maximum on the 3rd–4th days was revealed over Northern Europe and the European part of Russia in the Northern hemisphere. In the Southern hemisphere two regions of a pronounced pressure growth with the maxi- mum on the 4th–5th days were found, the first region is located over the eastern part of the South Atlantic and the second one is over the d’Urville Sea in the Southern Ocean. In both hemispheres the pressure growth was observed at middle latitudes, ?40–70?N and ?40–70?S, correspondingly. Most pronounced pressure deviations are associated with climatic Arctic/Antarctic and Polar fronts, which are the regions of intensive cyclonic activity. According to the weather chart analysis, the detected pres- sure increases are due to the weakening of cyclones and intensification of anticyclones at extratropical latitudes in both hemispheres associated with Forbush decreases under study. The obtained results suggest that variations of galac- tic cosmic rays may influence dynamic processes at middle latitudes, so they may be considered as an important link between solar activity and the lower atmosphere

Full text

  1. ren says:

    In this work we carried out the investigation of the response of atmospheric pressure at the level
    1000 hPa to Forbush-decreases of galactic cosmic rays in both hemispheres. A significant pressure growth with the maximum on the 3rd-4th days was revealed over Northern Europe and Western Siberia in the Northern hemisphere. In the Southern hemisphere two regions of a pronounced pressure growth with the maximum on the 4th-5th days were found. The first region is located between South Africa and Antarctica, and the second one is between Australia and Antarctica. In both hemispheres the pressure growth was observed at middle latitudes, ~40-70°N and ~40-70°S, correspondingly. It was shown that most prominent pressure deviations areassociated with the climatic atmospheric fronts, Arctic and Polar, which are the regions of most intensive cyclonic activity. At the same time the significant pressure growth is observed in
    the regions of low geomagnetic cutoff rigidities that allows precipitation of particles with minimum energies from ~ 0,1 to 2-3 GeV. The obtained results suggest that the variations of low-energy component of galactic cosmic rays strongly modulated by solar activity may influence dynamic processes at middle latitudes, so these variations may be considered as an important link between solar activity and the lower atmosphere.

  2. ren says:

    Tallbloke thank you very much.

  3. tallbloke says:

    ren: I knew you would like this article. 😉
    It seems that Russian scientists are further ahead in discovering the natural causes of weather and climate variation than their western counterparts.

  4. oldbrew says:

    TB: you mean ‘nothing to see here, move along’ isn’t going to be good enough? Shock horror 😉

  5. ren says:

    With this work shows that the pressure changes on tall latitudes are associated with jumps of galactic radiationwhat took place from the autumn 2013.

  6. ren says:

    This could be the cause of the braking polar vortex.

  7. p.g.sharrow says:

    While it appears that radiation and atmospheric pressure changes are connected, I would be careful about pointing to cause and effect. The causative agent may be undiscovered as of yet.
    I look to EMF field changes as the cause. Something that would effect all matter. pg

  8. edcaryl says:

    This is the second paper I have seen looking at short-term changes after Forbush Decreases. But I have seen none looking at longer term changes. So I did my own study.
    Pre-1980, there seems to have been a small correlation between cosmic rays and temperature, both for gross cosmic ray levels and over a few months for Forbush Decreases. After 1980, this disappears. Why? Did we hit a limit? It will be interesting to see if this effect returns in the coming cooling.

  9. ren says:

    It is very important that the pressure is changing in specific areas. This indicates the influence of Earth’s magnetic field and charged particles.

  10. ren says:

    edcaryl says:
    It’s about short-term changes. GCR increases can cause changes in other areas in accordance with the magnetic field. In addition, the important difference is the intensity of radiation.
    In this work we carried out the investigation of the response of atmospheric pressure at the level
    1000 hPa to Forbush-decreases of galactic cosmic rays in both hemispheres. A significant pressure growth with the maximum on the 3rd-4th days was revealed over Northern Europe and Western Siberia in the Northern hemisphere.

  11. tallbloke says:

    Hi Ed: Interesting. I wonder if there might be some value in comparing the neutron flux at Oulu with a nearby SST dataset, such as one from the far north Atlantic?

  12. ren says:

    Temperature changes occur very rapidly in the stratosphere.

  13. ren says:

    In the upper stratospheric UV longer operate in the lower GCR.
    The meridianal course of the jet stream will slowly cool the oceans. The drop in temperature may correspond to the one who is out.

  14. ren says:

    We must also taken into account the impact of GCR on the types of clouds.

  15. ren says:

    The impact of climate GCR is obvious:
    Abstract. High energy cosmic rays may influence the formation of clouds,
    and thus can have an impact on weather and climate. Cosmic rays in the solar wind
    are incident on the magnetosphere boundary and are then transmitted through the
    magnetosphere and atmosphere to reach the upper troposphere. The flux to the
    troposphere will depend both on the intensity and spectrum of the cosmic rays at
    the outer boundary of the magnetosphere (magnetopause) and on the configuration
    of the magnetosphere through which they propagate. Both the incident flux and the
    magnetospheric transmission have changed systematically during this century due to
    systematic changes in the solar wind. We show that, early in the century the region of
    the troposphere open to cosmic ray precipitation was usually confined to a relatively
    small high-latitude region. As the century progressed there was a systematic increase in
    the size of this region by over 7″. We suggest that these changes contributed to climate
    change during the last 100 years.

    Click to access 98-1743.pdf

  16. ren says:

    I am very curious to know if spring surprise us.

  17. A number of different things change at the same time when solar variation occurs:

    Cosmic ray amounts
    Ozone amounts
    Magnetic Field Lines
    Solar wind pressure.

    Of all those (and others) I favour ozone variations as the primary causative factor simply because the presence of ozone from the tropopause upwards is what causes the tropopause in the first place.

    As far as I can tell, it is only changes in the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles that could cause latitudinal climate zone and jet stream shifting such as that observed.

    It is that shifting that causes cloudiness variations which then go on to alter the proportion of solar radiation that can enter the oceans to drive the climate system.

  18. ren says:

    Here you can see how strong the lock of ozone over the Alaska, which changes the shape of the polar vortex the winter.
    Height of 15 km.

  19. ren says:

    The one thing is important, because of the short period of 11 years it is difficult to show the link between climate change with solar activity. However, if the activity will be at a low level a few cycles, it will clear.

  20. suricat says:

    TB. Let’s remind your readers what a “Forbush decrease” is all about:

    For my part, I understand that it takes a while for GCRs to progress their way through Sol’s ‘Heliosphere’ (the ‘sphere’ produced by Sol’s outgoing mass emission), thus, any ‘flare’ produced by Sol will affect incoming GCRs over quite a long ‘time scale’ and not exhibit the ‘short time scale’ events implied in this paper (I really should read the paper first, but ‘gut instinct’ and time constraints rule for now).

    However, is it not more logical that Sol’s ‘out going’ GCR component is the mediator of these observations?

    Best regards, Ray.

  21. Paul Vaughan says:

    Recent solar-terrestrial update with new data:

    New (refers to detrended version of blue solar cycle deceleration curve illustrated above):

    multidecadal sun-climate (aka ‘stadium’) wave expression in sea surface temperature field:

    (in sixteenth-of-a-wave phase-steps)

    Credit: Map animation facilitated by KNMI Climate Explorer.

    So equator-pole insolation-gradient spatiotemporal-frequency-shift (trivial extension of Milankovitch) modulates annual circulatory topology (in spatiotemporal central limit), causing significant regional deviations from the longer sunspot amplitude integral (the red wave (which is tracked by global cumulative water heating)).

    It’s a lot simpler than anyone (in the mainstream) seems willing to say (at this point in time). If it weren’t for the intrusive politics, this wouldn’t be controversial at all and mainstream researchers would run off to extend these trivial insights radially. Countless new studies can be based on these core insights.

    I’ll animate the SST field expression of the longer (red sunspot integral) wave another day. There’s also a global volcanic optical depth seesaw pattern worth illustrating another day. (I delightedly became aware of it while investigating spatiotemporal residual patterns.) Along with ENSO scrambling, it can easily throw naive explorers (unaware of law-constrained solar-terrestrial proof) fatally off the sun-climate track.


  22. Paul Vaughan says:

    Some talkshoppers who’ve been around for awhile may recall that I looked into this in the past. I never stumbled upon this concise summary back then:

    Animation of 9 different map summaries of pattern shared by (Volcanic) Stratospheric Aerosol Optical Depth (SAOD) (aka Thickness (SAOT)) and sea surface temperature (ERSSTv3b2):

    So this is giving a clear message about shifts in circulation caused by altered insolation gradients. So this isn’t just about global amplitude (like so many climate discussion agents pretend). Again we are reminded that the mainstream has a nasty tendency to ignore (or at least severely dumb down for (misleading) narrative purposes) the role of shifting insolation gradients in circulation.

    Here’s another little reminder:

    Association of volcanic explosivity index (VEI) with extremes (maximum & minimum) of the solar cycle:

    Everything’s coupled. SAOD (aka SAOT) is just another scrambler like (& coupled with) ENSO. We have a law-constrained proof that enables us to see sun-climate attractors (central limits) through spatiotemporal fog & turbulence.

    (It will be more obvious how I ended up detouring down this delightful volcanic residual sidetrack after I find time to illustrate the patterns shared by SST & sunspot integral.)


  23. BoyfromTottenham says:

    Hi from Oz. PG – I note your comment above: “I look to EMF field changes as the cause. Something that would effect all matter. pg”. Water is a polar molecule, therefore clouds etc. will be attracted/repelled by changing electrical charges in the atmosphere. Have you considered this at all in your cogitations?

  24. @ Paul Vaughan

    Quote : “….Association of volcanic explosivity index (VEI) with extremes (maximum & minimum) of the solar cycle:…”

    It’s coming !
    European Geosciences Union General Assembly 2014
    Vienna | Austria | 27 April – 02 May 2014

  25. Interesting that the recent strong jets and warmer West European conditions than average have occurred at a time when solar cycle 24 seems to be showing a second peak in activity during the current period of solar maximum.

    Maybe a warm summer coming up ?

    Nonetheless, the general background trend would still be for overall cooling due to the lower cycle 24 peak than for previous cycles.

  26. ren says:

    Stephen Wilde this weakening of the Sun’s magnetic field has the effect of increase in the GCR.

  27. ren says:

    On a short time scale of a few days, there exists much evidence that CR changes may affect the process of cyclogenesis via the changing transparency and pressure, particularly in the North Atlantic during cold seasons. Although each individual piece of evidence is
    barely significant, in aggregate, they suggest that the relation can be real.
    A link between low clouds and CR appears statistically significant on the interannual time scale
    since 1984 in limited geographical regions, the largest being North Atlantic + Europe and South Atlantic. We note that many reconstructions of the past climate are based on European data, where the CR–cloud relation is the most pronounced. Extension of this relation to the global scale may be misleading. A relation between the geomagnetic field changes and climatic variations provides evidence favouring the possible CR influence on climate. A study of regional climate variations in relation to the geomagnetic dipole axis migration over the last millennium is also promising.
    There is an indication of the climate changes synchronously with the CR flux on Myr time scales,
    but this result is not straightforward to interpret. Large uncertainties make it only indicative.
    Essential progress has been recently achieved in theoretical modelling of both ionizing effect of CR and physical mechanisms relating CRII to cloud variations, but the link between micro- and macro-physics is still missing. A new experimental evidence, obtained by the SKYexperiment team, confirm that enhanced ionization notably facilitates the production of small ion clusters in realistic atmospheric conditions.
    In conclusion, a CR–climate link seems to be a plausible climate driver, as supported by the bulk of
    statistical studies and existing theoretical models. However, further studies, in particular a clear case study as well as improved model development, are foreseen to improve our understanding of the link between cosmic rays and the climate on Earth.

    Click to access possibleconn.pdf

  28. ren,

    You appear to have emphasised both cosmic rays and ozone amounts as drivers of global cloudiness.

    Svensmark favours cosmic rays and I favour ozone reactions.

    Which do you prefer and why ?

    or do you have an alternative mechanism of your own ?

  29. Paul Vaughan says:

    Interpretive caution about multidecadal SCD wave expression in the SST field:

    The low correlations in the grey areas do not indicate lack of statistical significance.

    For some locations they indicate a disproportionate increase in the interannual variance fraction, which – for example – is no surprise for the big triangle in the Pacific.

    It’s becoming clear that this pilot exploration can be taken much further.

    I challenge Marcia Wyatt & Judy Curry to race me. I have almost no free time and I don’t have access to university resources (including half-million-dollar annual software licenses that I used to use daily), so it should be a breeze to race me. I dare them to try.

  30. ren says:

    Great Lakes will continue to freeze.,64.35,419
    Stephen Wilde :
    Cosmic rays and climate of the Earth: Possible connection
    Ilya G. Usoskina,

    GCR works in both the tropospheric and stratospheric like. In the stratosphere is simply little water, a lot of ozone.

  31. ren says:

    Let’s look at the solar magnetic field. Whether not confirm predictions Vukcevic?

  32. ren,

    Are you suggesting that cosmic rays affect ozone amounts ?

  33. ren says:

    Stephen Wilde
    That’s right, because the ionized oxygen. This is particularly evident during the polar night over the Arctic Circle.
    please read:
    4. Paper 1: Phase change associated with tropopause.

  34. ren says:

    “We suggest that, once the phase change conditions occur, some of these diatomic molecules begin clustering together to form “molecular clusters” or “multimers”. We illustrate this schematically in Figure 17.
    Below the tropopause, all of the oxygen is the conventional diatomic oxygen that people are familiar with. Similarly, all of the nitrogen is diatomic. However, above the tropopause, some of these air molecules coalesce into large multimers.

    Multimers take up less space per molecule than monomers. This reduces the molar density of the air. This explains why the molar density decreases more rapidly in Region 1 than in Region 2 (e.g., Figure 10).”
    Such mulitimery could be broken up by the GCR.

  35. suricat says:

    ren says: March 8, 2014 at 8:35 pm

    “Multimers take up less space per molecule than monomers. This reduces the molar density of the air.”

    Surely you meant to say ‘the opposite’! ‘More mass’ in ‘less space’ can only ‘increase density’! The ‘molar density’ that you speak of has a ‘veiled significance’ to many readers here.

    On another subject, are you sure that ‘the altitudes’ that you claim GCRs alter Earth’s atmosphere are ‘hidden’ from Sol’s insolation during the hemisphere’s winter period, and not just ‘Sol’s CR contribution’ to GCRs?

    Best regards, Ray.

  36. ren,

    Does it say anywhere in that link that it is cosmic ray amounts that affect multimer formation ?

    Note that I’m not yet convinced that the concept of multimers is necessary since the basic principles of the gas laws and the behaviour of mass in a gravity field seem good enough to achieve the observed effects on their own.

    Nor am I yet convinced that pervection is necessary given the presence of convection.

  37. ren says:

    Everything depends on the amount of GCR (magnetic activity of the Sun). If will be very high GCR, I am convinced that the studies will reveal GCR impact on the climate, as geological studies show.

  38. ren says:

    Stephen Wilde do you have different idea, which explains the lock polar vortex over the eastern Siberia?

    January 5, 2014, the height of about 20 km.

  39. ren

    I’m open minded as to the precise mechanism that causes differential ozone responses at different heights and latitudes so as to cause climate zone and jet stream shifting and /or changes in the frequency and intensity of ‘blocking’ events which do seem to be linked to the behaviour of the polar vortices.

    My best guess is variations in the mixture of wavelengths (especially U-V) and particles coming from the sun.

    At the moment I think variations in cosmic ray amounts are just a spurious solar induced correlation rather than a causative factor but I am open to persuasion, hence my questions.

    It doesn’t really matter for my New Climate Model since the essence of that is that shifts in the climate zones and jets occur in response to some sort of solar influence.

    If you can establish a link directly between cosmic ray variations and ozone variations without involving wavelength and particle variations then I would be intrigued.

  40. ren says:

    Stephen Wilde cosmic radiation produces a variety of ionizing molecules. Neutrons are only a part. Created a lot of photons.
    Note also that the blockade of the vortex formed in one area and all winter has not changed location.

  41. Ok, ren.

    Your point seems to be that cosmic rays create ionising molecules that then affect ozone amounts.

    Are you able to distinguish that cosmic ray effect on ozone from the effect on ozone from variations in solar wavelengths and particles ?

  42. ren says:

    You can check the rise and fall of cosmic rays in the winter over the polar circle, and the impact on the ozone over the Arctic Circle, the UV does not work. GCR strongest ozone is present in zone (about 15 km). The above are scientific papers on the subject.

  43. The UV wavelength variations occur along with the level of solar activity and the rise and fall of cosmic rays so why do you say that the UV doesn’t work ?

    The annual seasonal changes are not very helpful because they occur as a result of the tilt of the Earth whereas climate changes across decades and centuries so we really need to look at long term effects rather than summer / winter variations each year.

  44. BoyfromTottenham says:

    Hi from Oz. Stephen, ren: interesting discussion but a lot of guessing going on. Have you read the Wikipedia entry for the Ionosphere ( It talks a lot about ionisation at different heights from the pov of radio propagation. e.g. “A geomagnetic storm is a temporary intense disturbance of the Earth’s magnetosphere. During a geomagnetic storm the F₂ layer will become unstable, fragment, and may even disappear completely”, and “When the Sun is active, strong solar flares can occur that will hit the sunlit side of Earth with hard X-rays. The X-rays will penetrate to the D-region, releasing electrons that will rapidly increase absorption, causing a High Frequency (3 – 30 MHz) radio blackout. During this time Very Low Frequency (3 – 30 kHz) signals will be reflected by the D layer instead of the E layer, where the increased atmospheric density will usually increase the absorption of the wave and thus dampen it “.


  45. p.g.sharrow says:

    Actually I would think that surface and near surface fluctuations in magnetic and EMF fields would have more effect on weather conditions caused by surface pressure changes then Solar radiations. These terrestrial fields would be influenced by solar EMF and magnetic field changes. The Sun is not the cause of these fields but can change the direction and strength of these manifestations. The sun and moon do not cause the exhibited sea levels but do cause tides and currents in the oceans. The ocean of atmosphere we live in is just another “sea”. pg

  46. Thanks for the suggestions BfT and pgs.

    The question between me and ren is whether it is solar ionisation or cosmic ray ionisation that is most relevant to changes in the ozone creation / destruction balance.

    As regards EMF and magnetic variations I’m unclear as to how they would result in low level pressure variations.

    To get latitudinally shifting climate zones and jets one really needs to change the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles. Can EMF and magnetic variations achieve that ?

  47. ren says:

    Meanwhile, the galactic radiation increased again.

    Tallbloke small gift.

  48. ren says:

    Ionizing radiation at an altitude of 15 km (100 hPa). Visible polar vortex center.

    GCR reaches the lower stratosphere. The strongest effect shows a at a height of 10 to 25 km in the zone of of the ozone.

  49. ren says:

    There is full information on ionizing radiation in the lower stratosphere.
    An important atmospheric state variable, driven by space weather phenomena, is the ionizing
    radiation field. The two sources of atmospheric ionizing radiation are: (1) the ever-present,
    background galactic cosmic rays (GCR), with origins outside the solar system, and (2) the
    transient solar energetic particle (SEP) events (or solar cosmic rays), which are associated
    with eruptions on the Sun’s surface lasting for several hours to days with widely varying
    intensity. Quantifying the levels of atmospheric ionizing radiation is of particular interest
    to the aviation industry since it is the primary source of human exposure to high-linear
    energy transfer (LET) radiation.

  50. R J Salvador says:

    Your interesting exchange with Stephen Wilde, leaves me asking why the polar vortex locked up this time when it would seem that the same conditions of GCR level have occured in previous winters. Yet the last time the vortex dipped into North America was in Jan-Feb of 1994. Do you have an explanation into why 1994 and why not other winters up to now?

  51. tchannon says:

    Zaphod Beeblebrox is looking into it.

  52. R J Salvador says:

    On jet stream blocking the Hockey Schtick highlighted a new paper on the subject.
    Unfortunately it is behind a paywall.

  53. R J Salvador says:

    @ Tchannon

    Let me guess, the answer is 42. (:-)

  54. ren says:

    RJ Salvador GCR runs constantly, but when cycles were high and the large variability of the solar magnetic field in the cycle of 11 years, that was not so visible. Now it is different. The magnetic field of the sun weakens from 23 of the cycle, as evidenced by the level of cosmic radiation. Look for neutrons during the preceding and the current maximum. link

  55. ren says:

    Important to know that high-energy protons reach the entire area of the ozone and produce other molecules. 15 km is the height of the aeronautical, and there is the strongest ionization by GCR.

  56. p.g.sharrow says:

    @Stephen; The movement of matter causes Static charge build up as well as EMF induced currents to relieve the charge potential. Most charge drainage is benign but at times abrupt in lightning! Earthquakes are a similar event that is physical in nature. Both the stress and event release EMF. Just as matter movement causes charged fields, charged fields cause matter movement.
    In pollution control, dirty air is cleansed by an induced charge that causes the air in the ionizer to flow from charge “plate” to charge “plate” The small air molecules take and give the charge readily but the more massive pollutants do not and stick or accumulate and fall out. The device uses charge to pump air through the device. This seems to work better vertically then horizontally. In some devices this flow may be enhanced with a fan.
    In the ocean of air, changes in charge would cause apparent compression or decompression depending on charge polarity changes. See for pictorial representation:

    Gravity causes acceleration warpage equivalent of about 300volts per meter. A change in potential of thousands of volts between Troposphere and the surface would change the surface pressure as the troposphere is attracted toward or pushed away from the surface by changes in its’ potential. Gravity and static charge have many of the same outcomes. pg

  57. Steven Mosher says:

    Reanalysis “data” is actually model outputs.
    The inputs include weather stations poorly sited.

    [Reply] Are the ‘poorly sited weather stations’ weeded out by BEST Mosh?

  58. suricat says:

    @ren: I,ve become ‘lost’ in the complexity of your subject. I can’t see enough ‘definition’ to be able to see ‘the wood for the trees’! HELP!

    @ Stephen Wilde: I’m with you on the ‘disambiguation’ of GCRs, Sol’s CRs and ‘short wave length EM radiation’ (UV, X ray and Gamma ray insolation). The Brewer Dobson Circulation makes O3 plausible at high, but descending, altitudes within each Polar Vortex.

    BTW, “multimers” seem to be ‘fixed’ by the observed product’s ‘triple point’, and “pervection” looks to be, on the face of it, ‘molecular diffusion’. 😉

    @ Boyfrom Tottenham: Thanks for the ‘media’ by which this atmospheric alteration could be identified, but this isn’t ‘at’ the Polar Vortex. How can/could this help?

    @ p.g.sharrow: The problem with a ‘static’ EM field is that, its ‘non apparent motion’ (by definition) produces a ‘current’ and a ‘magnetic field’! This is ‘why’ the ‘Thunderbolts site’ enjoys problems with ‘scientific recognition’ (the ‘relativ-ity’ mechanism is missing)! How can this be remedied?

    @ R J Salvador: IMHO we are dealing with observations that don’t relate to a ‘bona fide’ ‘singular reference’ for ‘causation’! It would be nice to have one. 🙂

    @ tchannon: No he isn’t. He’s just sipping coffee in the restaurant at the end of the universe. Nice thought though. 😉

    Best regards, Ray.

  59. ren says:

    Tallbloke, the material for the article.

    Click to access ngeo2094-s1.pdf

  60. p.g.sharrow says:

    @suricat; Ray, definition of terms often get in the way of understanding and communication.

    A static electrical field will not exhibit current caused electromotive effects. Still, it does cause acceleration force on matter, much the same as gravity causes. When electrons exist but don’t travel and are in chaos, they cause a static field because they are charge that spins and as they accumulate in numbers the charge field increases in strength. If they travel, magnetic effects are manifested. If they spin and are aligned, a polar field results.

    The warpage in an atomic structure caused by gravity or static charge fields is the same and will cause acceleration forces as the nucleus tries to center inside its’ electron shell. The electron shell is the “surface” of the atom.

    The warpage of the dielectric of matter is the distortion of the nucleus from the center of the atom. The nucleus contains almost all of an atoms mass. So the warpage will cause the mass to push or pull the atom in the direction needed to relieve the warpage.

    An electrostatic field can cause the high and low pressure areas in the atmospheric column. pg

  61. suricat says:

    p.g.sharrow says: March 11, 2014 at 7:37 am

    I think that I appreciate what you’re saying p.g., but how can we define a ‘static electrical field’ when so much movement is going on ‘outside’ of our ‘reference frame’? This point just ‘stumps’ me for ideas. 😦

    Your “warpage” (warping of the atom’s structure between the electron shell and nucleus) would be a way to observe ‘inertial stresses’ (if there is a way to observe this condition), but it can’t show/prove ‘an electrical potential in constant motion’. Only its ‘magnetic property’ can illustrate this AFAIK.

    If we take the case of ionised gasses within the Brewer Dobson Circulation, these gasses progress from the Equator to the Poles during ~2 years. These gasses are electrically ‘charged’ (in the ‘static electricity’ sense), are slowly moving towards the Poles, are accelerated and decelerated on a ‘diurnal’ regimen, are orbiting Sol at a rate of knots, and their vector within Sol’s system takes them to, who knows where.

    Is this ‘static electricity’? 😉

    Best regards, Ray.

  62. p.g.sharrow says:

    @suricat In the “good old days” of atomic research particle accelerators were needed, atom smashers. Among the first were those that used Van De Graff generators to create the charge field. Just an accumulator of electrons for their negative charge that could be used to attract heavy positive ions to the target. Among early “electric” generators was the Wiemhurst Machine. A hand cranked device of 2 counter rotating disks and 2 accumulator Leyden jars. I know of one motor powered giant Wiemhurst type machine that had 8 foot disks and was used by a researcher at Lawrence Livermore Berkeley labs., for his static High Voltage investigations.

    The warpage that I envision in the atmosphere column is between the charge negative of space and positive condition of the earth as modified by solar activity in near space and ground charge changes caused by subsurface actions. Greater charge difference will result in greater acceleration warpage toward the surface, or higher pressure on the surface. The reverse will cause a low pressure area. The results of A not so static, 😉 static electric field.

    Magnetic fields can also have effects on matter as lines of force have flow along the force lines. Magnetic materials will concentrate lines of force within themselves, Dia magnetic materials reject the force lines. Ferro magnetic materials create their own fields and will attempt to align themselves with the external fields. Magnetic fields can change static field accumulation and dispersal. Lots of moving parts, but, the warpage induced by charge is the same as warpage caused by gravity and adds or detracts from it. pg

  63. […] pagine di Tallbloke, blog di punta delle discussioni su questo argomento, arriva la segnalazione di un lavoro […]