General AGW debate thread

[skierinvermont]

The AMO is essentially the same type of oscillation as the PDO, just on the Atlantic side. Therefore, if one assumes that the PDO can modulate global temperatures, then you have to assume the AMO can as well. The reason it is tougher to correlate, however, is due to the smaller size of the Atlantic, especially versus the Pacific side, which makes the Pacific much more meaningful and easier to correlate. Other factors can more easily override the Atlantic signal.

For folks that do long range forecast, it's a lot like the QBO. If you look at correlations in a vacuum, the signal is hard to see, but it can constructively or destructively intefere with the signal you get when combining everything else.

Yes. I'm not saying there is no theoretical effect.. just that the effect is too small to detect in the past.. and therefore there is no reason to think it will suddenly start having a detectably large effect of >.1C. Claims that global temperatures won't drop till the AMO goes negative are really quite silly.

[skierinvermont]

1) Dude, I'm selecting 1998-2011 because of your claimed +.08C warming which you never gave evidence to...PDO warmed from 1998-2006, (8 years) then fell negative as we entered the "official" negative base phase in 2007 thru 2009, went positive in 2010, now is back negative. The +.08C stops at 2007, thats the problem with using a weighted mean trend.

You don't seem to understand trend lines.

The trend line for the PDO 1998-2011 is negative. This indicates that the PDO most probably had a net cooling effect on the period as it gradually declined from its strong positive phase prior to 1999, to its neutral phase 1999-2007, to its negative phase 2007-present.

It is entirely irrelevant what the PDO trend 1999-2006 was if we are discussing temperature trends 1998-2011. You are basically throwing out half the years because they are the years which make it into a negative trend and you want to somehow twist this clear unambiguous negative trend in the PDO over the period in question into a positive trend by throwing out 1998 and 2007-2011.

I would be more than happy to discuss the period of 1999-2006 instead of 1998-2011, if you would prefer. The temperature trend over the period 1999-2006 is +.47C/decade, which is not surprising given the positive trend in ENSO and the PDO during that period.

[VAwxman]

Yes. I'm not saying there is no theoretical effect.. just that the effect is too small to detect in the past.. and therefore there is no reason to think it will suddenly start having a detectably large effect of >.1C. Claims that global temperatures won't drop till the AMO goes negative are really quite silly.

Yeah if the PDO / solar / etc are in a state where they favor cooling, my hunch is that the AMO alone won't be enough to override all of that, and it should start trending down in the next few years anyway IMO. To some degree it is pushed around by the PDO anyhow.

[BethesdaWX]

Yes. I'm not saying there is no theoretical effect.. just that the effect is too small to detect in the past.. and therefore there is no reason to think it will suddenly start having a detectably large effect of >.1C. Claims that global temperatures won't drop till the AMO goes negative are really quite silly.

Oh...then we agree.

I've always stated the AMO doesn't correlate directly to GT. However, it can Increase/Decrease the overall Anomaly by +/- 0.1C, while not correlating to the trends at all, which are dominated by other factors.

The AMO also affects specific areas the PDO has less dominance in, such as the Arctic, Europe, and the Eastern US.

[nzucker]

Oh...then we agree.

I've always stated the AMO doesn't correlate directly to GT. However, it can Increase/Decrease the overall Anomaly by +/- 0.1C, while not correlating to the trends at all, which are dominated by other factors.

The AMO also affects specific areas the PDO has less dominance in, such as the Arctic, Europe, and the Eastern US.

Don't you think the PDO affects the Arctic by modulating ENSO?

La Niñas tend to be cold in the Arctic except this year. Weird 500mb composite for Winter 10-11 in a strong Niña/-PDO:

[nzucker]

Some cooling in the latest SST map released by NOAA in the ENSO regions and to the immediate south in that large cold pool around 15S, 130W..La Niña is putting up a great fight here, folks.

Now:

3/14:

[BethesdaWX]

Of course the PDO affects the arctic...but thats kinda the issue here IMO.....the +AMO was most likely the primary cause for the warmth in the Arctic..it correlates/strengthens with the -NAO/-AO.

PDO may have dominance over ENSO, but more La Nina cannot lead to a colder Arctic with an uber +AMO/-NAO/-AO the entire time.

Also of Note is the QBO, which can determine HLB in general. Solar induced SSWings as well.

Speaking of the QBO....we have an Easterly QBO developing for next winter!

[skierinvermont]

Oh...then we agree.

I've always stated the AMO doesn't correlate directly to GT. However, it can Increase/Decrease the overall Anomaly by +/- 0.1C, while not correlating to the trends at all, which are dominated by other factors.

The AMO also affects specific areas the PDO has less dominance in, such as the Arctic, Europe, and the Eastern US.

This is a direct contradiction. If the AMO modulated global temperature by .1C then there would be a detectable direct correlation to GT. The solar cycle only modulates it by .1C and there is a detectable direct correlation for the solar cycle. The AMO effect might be on the order of a few hundredths of a degree C (IE +/- .03C). If the AMO truly modulated global temperature by +/-.1C then we would be able to detect its correlation to global temperature more readily.

[nzucker]

This is a direct contradiction. If the AMO modulated global temperature by .1C then there would be a detectable direct correlation to GT. The solar cycle only modulates it by .1C and there is a detectable direct correlation for the solar cycle. The AMO effect might be on the order of a few hundredths of a degree C (IE +/- .03C). If the AMO truly modulated global temperature by +/-.1C then we would be able to detect its correlation to global temperature more readily.

It also depends on how the AMO cycles fall compared to the PDO and solar cycles. For example, if the -AMO cycles have always occurred when we had a +PDO/high solar, which could be just a matter of chance in the last 100 years, a short time period, then the global temperature influence would be masked in any simple correlation analysis. This is why you have to look beyond statistics in fields like meteorology where data is limited to short time periods with inherent biases.

[skierinvermont]

, if the -AMO cycles have always occurred when we had a +PDO/high solar, which could be just a matter of chance in the last 100 years

they don't.

we have -AMO and +AMO with high solar +PDO, low solar +PDO, high solar -PDO, low solar -PDO

there are more than enough repetitions of the AMO cycle through various 3rd variables to distinguish the effect statistically, if the effect was significant.

[nzucker]

they don't.

we have -AMO and +AMO with high solar, +PDO, low solar +PDO, high solar -PDO, low solar -PDO

We don't have any real low solar periods since reliable global temperature measurements began. Low solar is the Dalton or Maunder, and that data isn't available except through proxies and regional records.

[skierinvermont]

We don't have any real low solar periods since reliable global temperature measurements began. Low solar is the Dalton or Maunder, and that data isn't available except through proxies and regional records.

I am talking about intra 11-yr cycle

you mentioned "masking" by 3rd variables (specifically mentioning solar and the PDO) thus I assume you are referring to relative changes. If solar hasn't changed at all, then it can't "mask."

[BethesdaWX]

This is a direct contradiction. If the AMO modulated global temperature by .1C then there would be a detectable direct correlation to GT. The solar cycle only modulates it by .1C and there is a detectable direct correlation for the solar cycle. The AMO effect might be on the order of a few hundredths of a degree C (IE +/- .03C). If the AMO truly modulated global temperature by +/-.1C then we would be able to detect its correlation to global temperature more readily.

No its not. There is a difference between Correlation and Alteration. You need to slow down.

1) The trend in Global temperatures may be due to other factors (Such as PDO, Geomagnetic Solar Flux, etc) but the AMO exacerbates the warming/cooling trends. As NOAA states: In the 20^th century, the climate swings of the AMO have alternately camouflaged and exaggerated the effects of global warming, and made attribution of global warming more difficult to ascertain. ( http://www.aoml.noaa...hod/amo_faq.php )

2) Your point on the 1998-2006 PDO, you forget.......Since 2006, the Trend in Global Temps without ENSO has been Down. You cannot include the +PDO yrs before 2006 with the Negative Phase which took shape in 2006 and afterwards....OK?

EDIT: I cannot post for some reason, So Read this.

Skier, you are making no sense! In response to your post Below, I stated when describing the AMO, the Global temperature will NOT follow the AMO in the FINAL anomaly....BUT, the FINAL anomaly is Affected by the AMO, which has had greater than +0.1C since 1994

The AMO affecting global temps significantly is FACT< it is accepted by NOAA, and Almost every scientific center with a good reputation. Ask any MET on this board, and I'm sure see the answer.

Skier, read. The Geomagnetic Flux is really all that matters, it peaked in the 90's, and when it leveled off, so did global temps.

TSI (Total Solar Irradiance) will not correlate to Global Temps because you are Including Aspects of the Sun that do NOT have an Impact on global temps....the IMPORTANT aspects that HAVE had an effect did NOT level off in the 70's, but instead increased into the 90's.

[skierinvermont]

No its not. There is a difference between Correlation and Alteration. You need to slow down.

No there isn't. If there was an alteration, there would be a correlation. Take a statistics class.

[BethesdaWX]

I am talking about intra 11-yr cycle

you mentioned "masking" by 3rd variables (specifically mentioning solar and the PDO) thus I assume you are referring to relative changes. If solar hasn't changed at all, then it can't "mask."

Yes it Can be a Mask, because the correlations from solar come from the Geomagnetic Flux 10^14 WB) & 10/BE concentrations. TSI (total Solar Irradiance) cannot be compared relative with Global Temps, because it includes energies that DO NOT correlate and have been decreasing overall. Pretty Much All of the energy transfered between Solar & the earths Atmosphere is done Electrically. Where you find correlations won't be in the TSI, Nor will it be in the Sunspot Number. It will be in the Geomagnetic Flux!

Look at the Correlation between the Solar Magnetic Flux & Global Temperatures.

Notice the -PDO/-AMO phase masked the high Solar Flux in the late 1950's.

the +PDO/+AMO phase boosted the warming from 1976 through 2006.

The Geomagnetic Flux is where you find the correlation, TSI leveling off has nothing to do with Global Temps because energies other than Geomagnetic flux Don't significantly effect global temps...including those energies will f**k the trend.

The Flux increased through the 1990's, and thats all that matters.

[skierinvermont]

Yes it Can be a Mask, because the correlations from solar come from the Geomagnetic Flux 10^14 WB) & 10/BE concentrations. TSI cannot be compared relative with Global Temps, Neither Can Sunspots, because most of the energy transfered between Solar & the earths Atmosphere is done Electrically. Where you find correlations won't be in the TSI, Nor will it be in the Sunspot Number. It will be in the Geomagnetic Flux!

Look at the Correlation between the Solar Magnetic Flux & Global Temperatures.

Notice the -PDO/-AMO phase masked the high Solar Flux in the late 1950's.

the +PDO/+AMO phase boosted the warming from 1976 through 2006.

You don't seem to know what TSI is. TSI is ALL of the energy directed at earth by the sun.

[nzucker]

I am talking about intra 11-yr cycle

you mentioned "masking" by 3rd variables (specifically mentioning solar and the PDO) thus I assume you are referring to relative changes. If solar hasn't changed at all, then it can't "mask."

It has changed though: it's been steadily increasing since the early 1800s, and in many ways the mid 1600s, until the recent drop. Thus, if you had high solar activity with a +PDO/Niño pattern from 1976-1998, it would mask the cooling effected by the PDO in the 80s and early 90s.

[skierinvermont]

It has changed though: it's been steadily increasing since the early 1800s, and in many ways the mid 1600s, until the recent drop. Thus, if you had high solar activity with a +PDO/Niño pattern from 1976-1998, it would mask the cooling effected by the PDO in the 80s and early 90s.

The AMO went negative in the middle of the -PDO and also a relative solar minimum from a peak in the 1940s. If there was a significant effect of .1C+ it would be much more apparent.

[ORH_wxman]

In order to get a true measurement of the AMO's impact, you'd have to isolate it independent to all other variables that are more influential. As Brian (VAwxman) said, if you believe the PDO affects global temps, then you have to believe the AMO affects them too. It makes zero physical sense to say one affects it and the other does not. The Atlantic is a smaller ocean so the effect is definitely going to be smaller.

You can't claim a large effect, but you also cannot claim no effect. The PDO and the AMO cycles are not in sync but staggered by roughly 15-20 years. I don't think its probably a coincidence that we saw a bit of a secondary drop in temps in the 1960s/early 1970s when the AMO tanked and the PDO was still in the negative phase. If you just run a simple correlation of AMO to global temps, you can come up results that don't tell you anything if they are being masked by other independent variables that are more influential.

[WeatherRusty]

In order to get a true measurement of the AMO's impact, you'd have to isolate it independent to all other variables that are more influential. As Brian (VAwxman) said, if you believe the PDO affects global temps, then you have to believe the AMO affects them too. It makes zero physical sense to say one affects it and the other does not. The Atlantic is a smaller ocean so the effect is definitely going to be smaller.

You can't claim a large effect, but you also cannot claim no effect. The PDO and the AMO cycles are not in sync but staggered by roughly 15-20 years. I don't think its probably a coincidence that we saw a bit of a secondary drop in temps in the 1960s/early 1970s when the AMO tanked and the PDO was still in the negative phase. If you just run a simple correlation of AMO to global temps, you can come up results that don't tell you anything if they are being masked by other independent variables that are more influential.

This is essentially the same argument I have made for CO2 forcing. Rather than being spatially outweighed as in the case of the AMO, CO2 forcing is outweighed in time by relatively short term influences such as coupled oceanic/atmospheric oscillations. It is when you compare the relative strengths of the various climate changing factors in isolation, and then apply those impacts to the longer time frame in which AGW plays out that the importance of constantly increasing CO2 is evident.

[skierinvermont]

In order to get a true measurement of the AMO's impact, you'd have to isolate it independent to all other variables that are more influential. As Brian (VAwxman) said, if you believe the PDO affects global temps, then you have to believe the AMO affects them too. It makes zero physical sense to say one affects it and the other does not. The Atlantic is a smaller ocean so the effect is definitely going to be smaller.

You can't claim a large effect, but you also cannot claim no effect. The PDO and the AMO cycles are not in sync but staggered by roughly 15-20 years. I don't think its probably a coincidence that we saw a bit of a secondary drop in temps in the 1960s/early 1970s when the AMO tanked and the PDO was still in the negative phase. If you just run a simple correlation of AMO to global temps, you can come up results that don't tell you anything if they are being masked by other independent variables that are more influential.

I think part of the confusion may be that when I am saying +/-.03 or .05C that would mean .1C from peak to trough which is still quite a bit.

Part of the coolness of the 1964-1976 period may have been due to the solar minimum in the mid 60s and mid-70s, as well as a weak maximum around 1970. But I can also see the AMO having played some role as well. The AMO basically crashed from the early 60s to the early 70s. If it had more than the <+/-.05C (<.1C peak to trough) effect that I am proposing, then surely we would have witnessed greater cooling in the 60s and 70s. We already had a continued -PDO, a relatively weak solar cycle with minimums in both the mid 60s and mid 70s, and rapidly rising aerosol concentrations.

[ORH_wxman]

I think part of the confusion may be that when I am saying +/-.03 or .05C that would mean .1C from peak to trough which is still quite a bit.

Part of the coolness of the 1964-1976 period may have been due to the solar minimum in the mid 60s and mid-70s, as well as a weak maximum around 1970. But I can also see the AMO having played some role as well. The AMO basically crashed from the early 60s to the early 70s. If it had more than the <+/-.05C (<.1C peak to trough) effect that I am proposing, then surely we would have witnessed greater cooling in the 60s and 70s. We already had a continued -PDO, a relatively weak solar cycle with minimums in both the mid 60s and mid 70s, and rapidly rising aerosol concentrations.

Well I'm definitely not on board with thinking the AMO had like a 0.10 effect...i suppose its possible in any given single year or three if its in an extreme state, but its likely a level much lower than that on the decadal scale. So I agree that its not a big player. The PDO will dominate it.

[valkhorn]

Yes it Can be a Mask, because the correlations from solar come from the Geomagnetic Flux 10^14 WB) & 10/BE concentrations. TSI (total Solar Irradiance) cannot be compared relative with Global Temps, because it includes energies that DO NOT correlate and have been decreasing overall. Pretty Much All of the energy transfered between Solar & the earths Atmosphere is done Electrically. Where you find correlations won't be in the TSI, Nor will it be in the Sunspot Number. It will be in the Geomagnetic Flux!

Look at the Correlation between the Solar Magnetic Flux & Global Temperatures.

Notice the -PDO/-AMO phase masked the high Solar Flux in the late 1950's.

the +PDO/+AMO phase boosted the warming from 1976 through 2006.

The Geomagnetic Flux is where you find the correlation, TSI leveling off has nothing to do with Global Temps because energies other than Geomagnetic flux Don't significantly effect global temps...including those energies will f**k the trend.

The Flux increased through the 1990's, and thats all that matters.

Correlation doesn't equal causation. To show causation, you have to show some sort of mechanism connecting the two.

This is why correlation CAN equal causation with CO2, because the greenhouse effect is a mechanism by which CO2 can cause a net warming of a climate.

For geomagnetic flux, you're going to have to show how this has ANY mechanism on warming. Since the atmosphere isn't made of Iron, you're going to have to show some way for geomagnetism's flux to somehow alter either the atmosphere, how the atmosphere interacts with the sun, or how the content of the atmosphere changes because of it.

[WeatherRusty]

Correlation doesn't equal causation. To show causation, you have to show some sort of mechanism connecting the two.

This is why correlation CAN equal causation with CO2, because the greenhouse effect is a mechanism by which CO2 can cause a net warming of a climate.

For geomagnetic flux, you're going to have to show how this has ANY mechanism on warming. Since the atmosphere isn't made of Iron, you're going to have to show some way for geomagnetism's flux to somehow alter either the atmosphere, how the atmosphere interacts with the sun, or how the content of the atmosphere changes because of it.

The typical skeptical argument is not designed to demonstrate causality. With few exceptions, such as galactic cosmic rays affecting global cloud amount, their arguments seek only to cast doubt on the role anthropogenic interference plays in climate change. Skeptics rarely do any original research, they merely attack the mainstream science and it's practitioners.

[tacoman25]

The typical skeptical argument is not designed to demonstrate causality. With few exceptions, such as galactic cosmic rays affecting global cloud amount, their arguments seek only to cast doubt on the role anthropogenic interference plays in climate change. Skeptics rarely do any original research, they merely attack the mainstream science and it's practitioners.

That's one way to put it. Another is that many skeptics are aware of the limits of science...sometimes more than the scientists themselves. In addition, there is the giant gray area of skepticism: what exactly are you skeptical about? On one end of the spectrum, you have those who are skeptical about any warming. On the other, you have those who are skeptical about the catastrophic nature of AGW, though they have no doubt that AGW exists.

[valkhorn]

The typical skeptical argument is not designed to demonstrate causality. With few exceptions, such as galactic cosmic rays affecting global cloud amount, their arguments seek only to cast doubt on the role anthropogenic interference plays in climate change. Skeptics rarely do any original research, they merely attack the mainstream science and it's practitioners.

I do resent the deniers being lumped in as 'skeptics' - because the word skeptic to me invokes a sense of intellectual honesty that simple denial doesn't have.

A true skeptic would find something like this possibly interesting, but demand that there be a mechanism.

[BethesdaWX]

Correlation doesn't equal causation. To show causation, you have to show some sort of mechanism connecting the two.

This is why correlation CAN equal causation with CO2, because the greenhouse effect is a mechanism by which CO2 can cause a net warming of a climate.

For geomagnetic flux, you're going to have to show how this has ANY mechanism on warming. Since the atmosphere isn't made of Iron, you're going to have to show some way for geomagnetism's flux to somehow alter either the atmosphere, how the atmosphere interacts with the sun, or how the content of the atmosphere changes because of it.

Woa now, Mr Hypocrite, you're saying that what goes for solar flux doesn't go for CO2? Think for a minute....it is Unproven that CO2 can cause significant AGW,, aka, the amount of warming predicted. Its also a FACT that SOlar Flux Does Cause or Contribute to Warming....AGW is also a Hypothesis...yet solar flux is somehow subject to other rules?

Look at the LIA, MWP, RWP....and tell me that solar has no Impact.

There is Greater evidence and correlation on the Solar side.

But......As you wish.

Everything is linked.

The following figure shows the correspondence between the changing magnetic field in the Arctic and Arctic temperatures. The magnetic field is shown for Hudson Bay (blue), Siberia (green) and the average (red) and compared with the Arctic average temperature anomalies (maroon). [http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AT-GMF.gif]

A recent paper (Daniel Johnston: “An Alternative View of Global Warming” May 2008 [http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/Johnston_MagneticGW.pdf] provides the following figure. He developed a prediction model for predicting the temperature anomaly as a function of the magnetic field. Each frame shows the magnetic field strength at two stations (black and purple) along with the temperature anomaly for the latitude band (red) and the temperature predicted from the magnetic data for the two stations (light blue and dark blue). (Magnetic field strength data comes from http://www.wdc.bgs.ac.uk/)

A 2009 paper (Adrian Kerton: “Climate Change and the Earth's Magnetic Poles, A Possible Connection”, Energy & Environment, Vol 20, 2009 [http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mscp/ene/2009/00000020/F0020001/art00005] states: “Analysis of the movement of the Earth's magnetic poles over the last 105 years demonstrates strong correlations between the position of the north magnetic, and geomagnetic poles, and both northern hemisphere and global temperatures. Although these correlations are surprising, a statistical analysis shows there is a less than one percent chance they are random, but it is not clear how movements of the poles affect climate.” The following figure is from that paper, comparing normalized NMP location in terms of latitude and longitude with normalized northern hemisphere temperature anomalies.

The global cooling over the past several years may be related to the recent decrease in the strength of the solar wind pressure. The following figure (left) shows global measurements of solar wind pressure by the Ulysses satellite (green curves - solar wind in 1992-1998, blue curves - solar winds in 2004-2008). [http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/23sep_solarwind.htm] “The average pressure of the solar wind has dropped more than 20% since the mid-1990s … the speed of the million mph solar wind hasn't decreased much—only 3%. The change in pressure comes mainly from reductions in temperature and density. The solar wind is 13% cooler and 20% less dense. The solar wind isn't inflating the heliosphere as much as it used to … That means less shielding against cosmic rays. Ulysses also finds that the sun's underlying magnetic field has weakened by more than 30% since the mid-1990s”

The following figure shows the sunspot cycles since 1880 [http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml]. The sunspot cycle is approximately an 11-year cycle – the sun’s magnetic field reverses with each sunspot cycle and thus after two sunspot cycles the magnetic field has completed a reversal cycle – a Hale Cycle – and is back to where it started). Thus a complete magnetic sunspot cycle is approximately 22 years (the 11 year cycle varies substantially). From the solar magnetic flux / sunspot plot shown above it can be seen that the rapid increase in magnetic flux occurs at the onset of the sunspot cycle, a couple of years after the solar minimum occurs.

The following figure compares the Hadley (HadCrut3) global average temperature shown previously with the sunspot cycle since 1900 from above. Shifts in global temperature coincide with the onset of odd-numbered sunspot cycles (red vertical lines). In each case – approximately 1915, 1936, 1957, 1977, 1998 the onset of the odd-numbered cycle corresponds to an increase in global temperature. The onsets of even-numbered solar cycles (green vertical lines) are not as consistent.

A study of solar magnetic clouds during 1994 - 2002 by Wu, Lepping & Gopalswamy, “Solar Cycle Variations of Magnetic Clouds and CMEs” [http://www.scostep.ucar.edu/archives/scostep11_lectures/Pap.pdf] states: “The average occurrence rate is 9 magnetic clouds per year for the overall period (68 events/7.6 years). It is found that some of the frequency of occurrence anomalies were during the early part of Cycle 23: 1. Only 4 magnetic clouds were observed in 1999, and 2. An unusually large number of magnetic clouds (16 events) were observed in 1997 in which the Sun was beginning the rising of Cycle 23”

The following figure shows the relative polarity of the Sun’s magnetic poles for recent sunspot cycles along with the solar magnetic flux [www.bu.edu/csp/nas/IHY_MagField.ppt]

A 2007 study (Vovk, V.; Egorova, L., “Role of solar activity in formation of the anomalous El Nin'o current”, Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, Volume 47, Number 1, February 2007 [http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/maik/11478/2007/00000047/00000001/00001014]) found “a sharp decrease in the SOI indices, which corresponds to the beginning of El Nin'o (ENSO), is preceded one or two months before by a 20% increase in the monthly average Wolf numbers. In warm years of Southern Atmospheric Oscillation a linear relationship is observed between the SOI indices and the number of geoeffective solar flares with correlation coefficients p < −0.5. It is shown that in warm years a change in the general direction of the surface wind to anomalous at the above stations is preceded one or two days before by an increase in the daily average values of IMF Bz. An increase in the SOI indices is preceded one or two months before by a considerable increase in the monthly average values of the magnetic AE indices.”

A 2009 study (Knudsen and Riisager, “Is there a link between the Earth’s magnetic field and low-latitude precipitation?”, Geology, v 37, January 2009 [http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/37/1/71]) states: “Some studies indicate that the solar modulation of galacticcosmic ray (GCR) particles has profound consequences for Earth'sclimate system. A corollary of the GCR-climate theory involvesa link between Earth's magnetic field and climate, since thegeomagnetic field also modulates the GCR flux reaching Earth'satmosphere. In this study, we explore this potential geomagnetic-climatelink by comparing a new reconstruction of the Holocene geomagneticdipole moment with high-resolution speleothem data from Chinaand Oman. The speleothem ¹⁸O data represent proxy records forpast precipitation in low-latitude regions, which is a climateparameter that is likely to have been sensitive to variationsin the GCR flux modulated by the dipole moment. Intriguingly,we observe a relatively good correlation between the high-resolutionspeleothem ¹⁸O records and the dipole moment, suggesting thatEarth's magnetic field to some degree influenced low-latitudeprecipitation in the past. In addition to supporting the notionthat variations in the geomagnetic field may have influencedEarth's climate in the past, our study also provides some degreeof support for the controversial link between GCR particles,cloud formation, and climate.”

A study published in 2008 (Robert Baker, “Exploratory Analysis of Similarities in Solar Cycle Magnetic Phases with Southern Oscillation Index Fluctuations in Eastern Australia” Geophysical Research Papers, Vol. 46, 2008) [http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/121542494/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0] states: “There is growing interest in the role that the Sun's magnetic field has on weather and climatic parameters, particularly the ~11 year sunspot (Schwab) cycle, the ~22 yr magnetic field (Hale) cycle and the ~88 yr (Gleissberg) cycle. These cycles and the derivative harmonics are part of the peculiar periodic behaviour of the solar magnetic field. Using data from 1876 to the present, the exploratory analysis suggests that when the Sun's South Pole is positive in the Hale Cycle, the likelihood of strongly positive and negative Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) values increase after certain phases in the cyclic ~22 yr solar magnetic field. The SOI is also shown to track the pairing of sunspot cycles in ~88 yr periods. This coupling of odd cycles, 23–15, 21–13 and 19–11, produces an apparently close charting in positive and negative SOI fluctuations for each grouping. This Gleissberg effect is also apparent for the southern hemisphere rainfall anomaly. Over the last decade, the SOI and rainfall fluctuations have been tracking similar values to that recorded in Cycle 15 (1914–1924). This discovery has important implications for future drought predictions in Australia and in countries in the northern and southern hemispheres which have been shown to be influenced by the sunspot cycle. Further, it provides a benchmark for long-term SOI behaviour.”

The onset of an odd-numbered sunspot cycle (1977-78, 1997-98) results in the relative alignment of the Earth’s and the Sun’s magnetic fields (positive North pole on the Sun) allowing greater penetration of the geomagnetic storms into the Earth’s atmosphere. As mentioned previously “Twenty times more solar particles cross the Earth’s leaky magnetic shield when the sun’s magnetic field is aligned with that of the Earth compared to when the two magnetic fields are oppositely directed” [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/news/themis_leaky_shield.html]

[BethesdaWX]

And more

The following figure is from the British Geological Survey [http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/reversals.html], “Measurements have been made of the Earth's magnetic field more or less continuously since about 1840. If we look at the trend in the strength of the magnetic field over this time (for example the so-called 'dipole moment' shown in the graph below) we can see a downward trend. ... We also know from studies of the magnetisation of minerals in ancient clay pots that the Earth's magnetic field was approximately twice as strong in Roman times as it is now.”

The Earth’s magnetic field “acts as a shield against the bombardment of particles continuously streaming from the sun. Because the solar particles (ions and electrons) are electrically charged, they feel magnetic forces and most are deflected by our planet's magnetic field. However, our magnetic field is a leaky shield and the number of particles breaching this shield depends on the orientation of the sun’s magnetic field. … Twenty times more solar particles cross the Earth’s leaky magnetic shield when the sun’s magnetic field is aligned with that of the Earth compared to when the two magnetic fields are oppositely directed” [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/news/themis_leaky_shield.html]

The Earth’s magnetic field interacts with the Sun’s magnetic field. The interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) is a part of the Sun's magnetic field that is carried into interplanetary space by the solar wind. [http://pluto.space.swri.edu/image/glossary/cme.html]. The Earth’s magnetic field is distorted by the solar wind as illustrated by the following figures [http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/icons/solarexp.jpg] (left) and [http://smsc.cnes.fr/OVH/] (right)

“Most of the energy transfer to the Earth from the solar wind is accomplished electrically, and nearly the entire voltage associated with this process appears in the polar cap region, which extends typically less than 20° in latitude from the magnetic pole. The total voltage across the polar cap can be as large as 100,000 volts, rivaling that of thunderstorm electrification of the planet in magnitude. This polar cap electric field is the major source of largescale horizontal voltage differences in the atmosphere. Moreover, the dynamic polar region accounts for a large fraction of the variability inherent in our upper atmosphere, variability due to chaotic changes in the solar wind magnetic field that produces large-scale restructuring of the cavity enclosing the Earth’s magnetic field. This restructuring visibly manifests itself most clearly in the production of ionized plasmas and the associated distribution of aurora high over the north and south polar regions. In turn, the Earth’s lower atmosphere (that part responsible for weather phenomena) undergoes variations in composition and dynamics influenced by these coupling effects through a complex and as yet not fully understood feedback system. [http://www.arcus.org/logistics/svalbard/Svalbard.pdf]

“Coronal mass ejections (CMEs) are eruptions into interplanetary space of as much as a few billion tons of plasma and embedded magnetic fields from the Sun's corona. ... The exact processes involved in the release of CMEs are not known. CMEs can occur at any time during the solar cycle, but their occurrence rate increases with increasing solar activity and peaks around solar maximum. ... Fast CMEs --those traveling faster than the ambient solar wind-- are responsible for triggering large, nonrecurrent geomagnetic storms when they encounter the Earth's magnetosphere. Such storms can result from the passage either of the CME itself or of the shock created by the fast CME's interaction with the slower-moving solar wind. The majority of large and major geomagnetic storms are generated by the encounter with both the interplanetary shock and the CME that drives it. The "geoeffectiveness" of CMEs --i.e., their ability to disturb the Earth's magnetosphere-- is a function of their speed, the strength of their magnetic field, and the presence of a strong southward magnetic field component.” [http://pluto.space.swri.edu/image/glossary/cme.html].

The following figure shows the correspondence of solar geomagnetic storms and the solar sunspot cycle [http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/earthmag.html].

A study done by an Assistant Professor of Earth Sciences at Dartmouth University [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/06/020607073439.htm] looked at the cycles of the sun’s magnetic fluctuations and found: “when the sun is magnetically more active, the earth experiences a warmer climate, and vice versa, when the sun is magnetically less active, there is a glacial period. Right now, the earth is in an interglacial period (in between ice ages) that began about 11,000 years ago, and as expected, this is also a time when the estimated solar activity appears to be high”

Authors of a Danish study published in 2009 stated: “Our results show a strong correlation between the strength of the earth's magnetic field and the amount of precipitation in the tropics” [http://www.physorg.com/news151003157.html]

A 2005 study (Georgieva, Bianchi and Kirov: “Once Again About Global Warming and Solar Activity”, Mem. Societa Astronomica Italiana, Vol 76, 2005 [http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..969G.pdf]) states: “We show that the index commonly used for quantifying long-term changes in solar activity, the sunspot number, accounts for only one part of solar activity and using this index leads to the underestimation of the role of solar activity in the global warming in the recent decades. A more suitable index is the geomagnetic activity which reflects all solar activity, and it is highly correlated to global temperature variations in the whole period for which we have data.” The study examined the geoeffectiveness of coronal mass ejections (CME) separated into two types – magnetic cloud (MC) and non-MC CMEs (CME), and coronal holes (CH). “when speaking about the influence of solar activity on the Earth, we cannot neglect the contribution of the solar wind originating from coronal holes. However, these open magnetic field regions are not connected in any way to sunspots, so their contribution is totally neglected when we use the sunspot number as a measure of solar activity” The following figures are from their study.

The following figures show the global average temperature from 1850 – 2008 (left) [http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/], and (right) the total solar magnetic flux (black line bounding grey shading and blue line) along with the annual sunspot number (shaded purple). The solar figure is from M. Lockwood, R. Stamper, and M.N. Wild: “A Doubling of the Sun's Coronal Magnetic Field during the Last 100 Years”, Nature Vol. 399, 3 June 1999 [http://www.ukssdc.ac.uk/wdcc1/papers/nature.html]) which states: “The magnetic flux in the solar corona has risen by 40% since 1964 and by a factor of 2.3 since 1901.”

The following figure superimposes the global temperature (from above left – changed to red) on the solar flux (from above right).

The following figure shows the change in global cosmic ray flux (GCR) from four independent proxies (left) showing the decrease in GCR throughout the 1900s. [http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Gray/Influence_of_Solar_Changes_HCTN_62.pdf] The right-hand figure compares the same data with the solar magnetic flux from above, showing the strong inverse correlation between the solar magnetic flux and the cosmic ray flux. The figures above and below indicate a strong correlation between the solar magnetic flux, the cosmic ray flux, and the global temperatures.

[LakeEffectKing]

The typical skeptical argument is not designed to demonstrate causality. With few exceptions, such as galactic cosmic rays affecting global cloud amount, their arguments seek only to cast doubt on the role anthropogenic interference plays in climate change. Skeptics rarely do any original research, they merely attack the mainstream science and it's practitioners.

Does degrading the word skeptisism provide you with some sort of cover for your insecurities? Do you EVER challange scientific conclusions, or do you weaken science by just accepting all that is "concluded" for you??

Your recent behavior is VERY typical of someone who might be beginning to have internal struggles with their own beliefs. It can be a hard fall......but we're here for you.

[WeatherRusty]

I do resent the deniers being lumped in as 'skeptics' - because the word skeptic to me invokes a sense of intellectual honesty that simple denial doesn't have.

A true skeptic would find something like this possibly interesting, but demand that there be a mechanism.

Whenever we get into name calling or stereotyping, someone is bound to take exception. Skepticism in science is absolutely essential as a motivating factor when considering new research initiatives. Denial is a more appropriate term for those who, well...are in denial, but that term seems to carry a lot of baggage. Most of the folks who rail against AGW deny the science as fraudulent or in some way as a corruption of science. AGW skepticism is a different breed.

Got to go quick.............