Magnetic Polar Shifts Causing Massive Global Superstorms (or not?)

[The Straight Story]

Magnetic Polar Shifts Causing Massive Global Superstorms

(CHICAGO) - NASA has been warning about it…scientific papers have been written about it…geologists have seen its traces in rock strata and ice core samples…

Now "it" is here: an unstoppable magnetic pole shift that has sped up and is causing life-threatening havoc with the world's weather.

Forget about global warming—man-made or natural—what drives planetary weather patterns is the climate and what drives the climate is the sun's magnetosphere and its electromagnetic interaction with a planet's own magnetic field.

When the field shifts, when it fluctuates, when it goes into flux and begins to become unstable anything can happen. And what normally happens is that all hell breaks loose.

Magnetic polar shifts have occurred many times in Earth's history. It's happening again now to every planet in the solar system including Earth.

...

Pole reversal may also be initiating new Ice Age

According to some geologists and scientists, we have left the last interglacial period behind us. Those periods are lengths of time—about 11,500 years—between major Ice Ages.

One of the most stunning signs of the approaching Ice Age is what's happened to the world's precessional wobble.

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/february042011/global-superstorms-ta.php


Shift of Earth's magnetic North Pole affects Florida airport

A runway at Florida's Tampa International Airport is scheduled to reopen Thursday with new numbers and signage to account for the gradual shift of the Earth's magnetic North Pole.

...

Every five years, the FAA reevaluates shifts in the poles – its magnetic variation – and makes changes to runways and flight procedures as needed, Bergen said.

The FAA also publishes new aeronautical charts for pilots every 56 days, and with the next one due on Thursday, it made sense to make the changes at Tampa International Airport effective the same day, she said.

"The Earth's magnetic fields are constantly changing," she said. "It’s a very dynamic system so we make these changes effective every 56 days."

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/12/shift-of-earths-magnetic-north-pole-affects-florida-airport/


Changing magnetic poles:

Last week's big geophysical story had to do with the gradual shift of Earth's magnetic north pole away from Canada and toward Russia. The poles move because of the changing flow of molten iron in Earth's core, which drives the planet's huge magnetic dynamo. This doesn't affect Earth's spin or geographical north, but it does cause the structure of the magnetic field to shift, which affects compasses. Although a lot of navigation nowadays is done using GPS systems, the Federal Aviation Administration wants to make sure that aviators can still find their way to a safe landing using magnetic compasses — and that's why it requires airports to revise their runway designations periodically to reflect the magnetic shift.

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/01/14/5841192-scientific-shifts-go-beyond-the-zodiac


Earth's Magnetic North Pole Is On the Move


The compass, perhaps the oldest navigational tool of man, does not point to the geographic north pole with its needle. Instead, it indicates the magnetic north pole — which, though close to the geographic north pole, is not at the “top” of the earth's axis. It is actually in the Artic Ocean north of Canada, and moves as the magnetic fields of the earth change.
The molten iron core of the spinning earth makes it a giant magnet. However, that magnetic field is actually moving. Jeffrey Love, a research scientist with the U.S. Geological Service’s Geomagnetism Program, notes: "So that means if you wait five years, the compass will be off by one degree." During some periods the drift of the magnetic north pole has been relatively slight. When it was first identified in 1831, it remained fairly stable for decades. Then, beginning in 1904, scientists began to observe a northeastern shift of about nine miles a year. Since 1989, the drift of the magnetic north pole has accelerated to about 35 miles a year in the direction of Siberia.

The earth's magnetic field also seems to be weakening. Scientists believe that in the last two centuries, the field has decreased by about five percent per century, after having remained fairly stable for the previous several centuries. Extensive and reliable information has been gleaned from centuries of sea travel. Sailors have long used compasses for navigation, and these sea voyagers have accurately recorded in their log books extensive and reliable information about the winds, tides, direction, stars and other variables. The magnetic orientation of minerals in rocks and pottery shards has also yielded clues about the planet’s magnetic field at different points in history.

The earth’s magnetic field may be in the process of reversing its polarity — something which scientists believe has happened in the distant past of the planet. Although the shift was too far back for historical records to exist, geologists are able to date lava flows to periods of planetary history, and this lava (frozen molten rock) has the same value as pottery shards in fixing the direction of magnetic fields at certain periods of time. David Gubbins, an earth scientist at the University of Leeds in Britain, ties this evidence of the decline in the strength of the planet’s magnetic field to increases of patches of reverse magnetic fields. He speculates on when this process began:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/5835-earths-magnetic-north-pole-is-on-the-move

[Confusious]

1. I really don't think the magnetic poles have anything to do with weather

I don't think they really have anything to with much besides compasses.

Now if the magnetic field collapses during a switch, you may have a point. But no one has ever said that's what happened during a shift.

[dipsydoodle]

2. Notwithstanding anything else

you don't think the that the tilt of the earth with respect to the sun makes any difference ?

Magnetic field collapses during a switch ? Surely it would do in the event complete pole reversal which has happened in the past - couldn't do otherwise.

[Confusious]

6. The magnetic fields are not connected to the tilt of the earth

And the magnetic field could continue on during the switch, so you would have northern lights in areas the poles pass through.

[dipsydoodle]

9. Oh

well at present its the earths tilt which has caused magnetic north to shift a bit. Hence the issue at the airport in FL.

[Confusious]

12. The magnetic field moved

It always moves. The tilt of the earth stays the same at 23 degrees. Of course we do wobble, with the tilt varying slightly, but thats over tens of thousands of years, and something we wouldn't notice.

Since the magnetic field moved, they need to readjust the compass and GPS, so if they're flying to Paris, they don't end up in the next town over.

[dipsydoodle]

25. Gotcha

Now I understand.

:hi:

[The Straight Story]

3. Weather and the Earth's magnetic field

Weather and the Earth's magnetic field

J. W. King

Appleton Laboratory,* Ditton Park, Slough SL3 9JX, England

A comparison of meteorological pressures and the strength of the geomagnetic field suggests a possible controlling influence of the field on the longitudinal variation of the average pressure in the troposphere at high latitudes. If so, changes which occur in the pattern of 'permanent' depressions in the troposphere as the magnetic field varies (for example, as the non-dipole component of the field drifts westwards) may be accompanied by climatic changes.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v247/n5437/abs/247131a0.html

Sun's Magnetic Field May Impact Weather And Climate: Sun Cycle Can Predict Rainfall Fluctuations

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081202081449.htm

[Confusious]

11. One

your first article says a "possible link"

Second, thats about the suns magnetic field, which controls the incidents of sunspots, which predict either more or less radiance from the sun. A big ball of plasma is different then earth.

Third, After thinking about it, there are a lot of ways the magnetic field could effect things on the earth, most of them through it weakening or growing stronger.

Since noone has said the magnetic field is weakening, I'm disinclined to believe the magnetic field is affecting the weather.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

10. .1 percent difference in the energy reaching us from the sun and what do you

have? You have what you get.

http://www2.ucar.edu/news/851/scientists-uncover-solar-cycle-stratosphere-and-ocean-connections


An international team of scientists led by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) used more than a century of weather observations and three powerful computer models to tackle one of the more difficult questions in meteorology: if the total energy that reaches Earth from the Sun varies by only 0.1 percent across the approximately 11-year solar cycle, how can such a small variation drive major changes in weather patterns on Earth?

The answer, according to the new study, has to do with the Sun's impact on two seemingly unrelated regions. Chemicals in the stratosphere and sea surface temperatures in the Pacific Ocean respond during solar maximum in a way that amplifies the Sun's influence on some aspects of air movement. This can intensify winds and rainfall, change sea surface temperatures and cloud cover over certain tropical and subtropical regions, and ultimately influence global weather.

"The Sun, the stratosphere, and the oceans are connected in ways that can influence events such as winter rainfall in North America," says NCAR scientist Gerald Meehl, the lead author. "Understanding the role of the solar cycle can provide added insight as scientists work toward predicting regional weather patterns for the next couple of decades."

[Confusious]

15. Has nothing to do with the earth's magnetic field.

visible light and ultraviolet and infrared pass through the magnetic field. It doesn't effect them at all. They warm the earth and affect the weather, as hotter areas build more pressure and try to move to lower pressure areas to even things out.

[Matariki]

4. The Hopi had Nasa beat with the warning.

I read a book *way* back in the 80's about a Hopi prediction of a polar shift. I thought it seemed a bit far fetched, but what do you know.

[Brother Buzz]

28. In the early 80's we discovered how Pueblo Indians maped the mysteries of the solar/lunar phases

As evidenced by the strategically carved spiral petroglyphsby on assembled/assisted rock formations.

Where can I read about the Hopi prediction of a polar shift? The closest I can get is 'Hopi Indian prophesies' that reads like a bunch of new age hokum rehashed ten ways to Tuesday, to include the The Book of Revelation, Mayan calendar, and Nostradamus: All Three!

[Matariki]

32. Yeah, gotta love the Mayan calendar, Nostradamus, crazy and/or high Bible Dude mash up!

Anyway - the book I was referring to is Book Of The Hopi by Frank Waters - it was published in 1963. I read it a long time ago, but I remember it being pretty good.

[wtmusic]

5. No evidence that magnetism affects weather.

There are two distinct topics here, although the Salem News author goes out of his way to imply a link where there is one, quoting NOAA next to NASA and thoroughly attempting to confound the issue.

For example he quotes the "scientific paper" Midday magnetopause shifts earthward of geosynchronous orbit during geomagnetic superstorms with Dst = -300 nT but fails to mention that geomagnetic superstorms have nothing to do with weather.

Superstorms are the result of increased atmospheric humidity, which is the result of global warming:

"Recent Climatology, Variability, and Trends in Global Surface Humidity

Abstract:

...Large RH (relative humidity) increases (0.5%–2.0% decade¹) occurred over the central and eastern United States, India, and western China, resulting from large q increases coupled with moderate warming and increases in low clouds over these regions during 1976–2004."

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/papers/Dai_JC06-sfcHumidity.pdf

[HysteryDiagnosis]

14. uhuh.... no evidence. unless you count this as evidence.

oh and yes I know, it's only a theory... for now.

http://www.viewzone.com/magnetic.weather.html




The results of the study, which has also been published in US scientific journal Geology, lend support to a controversial theory published a decade ago by Danish astrophysicist Henrik Svensmark, who claimed the climate was highly influenced by galactic cosmic ray (GCR) particles penetrating the earth's atmosphere.

Svensmark's theory, which pitted him against today's mainstream theorists who claim carbon dioxide (CO2) is responsible for global warming, involved a link between the earth's magnetic field and climate, since that field helps regulate the number of GCR particles that reach the earth's atmosphere.

"The only way we can explain the (geomagnetic-climate) connection is through the exact same physical mechanisms that were present in Henrik Svensmark's theory," Knudsen said.

"If changes in the magnetic field, which occur independently of the earth's climate, can be linked to changes in precipitation, then it can only be explained through the magnetic field's blocking of the cosmetic rays," he said.

[Confusious]

18. Is there aany loopy theory you don't like? nt

[HysteryDiagnosis]

27. But hey, I like loopy. Loopy is how we got to where we are now and it will be how

we will get where we are going. I'm sorry this was published in the journal Geology... why don't you call them or perhaps blog them and have it removed asap.

[wtmusic]

26. No, I don't count that as evidence.

It's published in the journal Geology. To put this article in the proper light:

The most lucrative profession for a geologist is exploration for oil reserves.

The largest donor to university geology departments is the fossil fuel industry.

So Geology has asked the world-reknowned Danish National Space Center for their expert opinion. Read the "paper" yourself - if you want a laugh.

"About twice a second an energetic subatomic particle whizzes through your head..."

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/influence-of-cosmic-rays-on-the-earth.pdf

[HysteryDiagnosis]

29. Heh heh.... ur a funny one... junk science and all....

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080717224333.htm

Sun Could Cause 15% To 20% Of Effects Of Climate Change, Researcher Says

ScienceDaily (July 18, 2008) — Global warming is mainly caused by greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activities; however, current climatic variations may be affected “around 15% or 20%” by solar activity, according to Manuel Vázquez, a researcher from the Canary Islands’ Astrophysics Institute (IAC) who spoke at the Sun and Climate Change conference, organised as part of the El Escorial summer courses by Madrid's Complutense University.


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v247/n5437/abs/247131a0.html
Weather and the Earth's magnetic field

J. W. King

Appleton Laboratory,* Ditton Park, Slough SL3 9JX, England

A comparison of meteorological pressures and the strength of the geomagnetic field suggests a possible controlling influence of the field on the longitudinal variation of the average pressure in the troposphere at high latitudes. If so, changes which occur in the pattern of 'permanent' depressions in the troposphere as the magnetic field varies (for example, as the non-dipole component of the field drifts westwards) may be accompanied by climatic changes.

[wtmusic]

31. The sun and the Earth's gravitational field are related...how again?

The Canary Islands' Astrophysics Institute?

Madrid's Complutense University?

Appleton Laboratory?

This is the kind of shit that deniers throw at the wall. Apparently, sometimes it sticks.

[Rage for Order]

35. Ah yes..."The scientists I cite are pure, the scientists you cite are corrupt!"

What is the largest donor to university climatology and meteorology departments? Why, that would be the very same governments that stand to reap hundreds of billions (trillions?) in tax revenue by establishing exchanges to issue and trade carbon credits. But those scientists are impartial, unlike those filthy geologists who will say anything for a buck.

[wtmusic]

36. How do governments stand to "reap hundreds of billions in tax revenue"

by establishing exchanges? Cap-and-trade is not a carbon tax, and has nothing to do with taxes (if anything it would be a very expensive, i.e., revenue-negative operation to run).

Let's assume you were in fact referring to a carbon tax. Does anyone personally in "the government" profit? Of course not - like any other tax, revenue goes into the general fund.

Unlike Geology departments, which build beautiful new buildings and pay administrators and professors lots of money. So there is a huge motive to pay little-known professors in storefront "universities" and "institutes" to tell them exactly what they want to hear.

[Rage for Order]

41. How do they stand to reap billions in tax revenue?

How do governments make money from capital gains taxes? Carbon credits will be traded like any other equity, and profits will be generated by the trading in these investment vehicles. Will anyone in the government "personally" profit? Probably not. That is, not until they leave government and go to work for one of the firms that operates in this new sphere of commerce. Does anyone in government "personally" profit from writing banking regulations that favor Goldman Sachs, et al at the expense of ordinary Americans? No? Then why do they keep writing laws that screw ordinary Americans?

on edit: Just so I'm sure I have this right, are you saying that Mads Faurschou Knudsen of the geology department at Aarhus University in western Denmark, Peter Riisager of the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland (GEUS), and Henrik Svensmark, a weather scientist at the Danish National Space Centre have all been bought off by big oil, and that Aarhus University, the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland (GEUS), and the Danish National Space Centre are "storefront universities and institutes"?

[wtmusic]

42. Ah, the Rube Goldberg Theory of Economics.

Very prescient. They're thinking about when they leave government work, and the people they've been taxing the hell out of are going to turn around and hire them.

ok. :crazy:

[Rage for Order]

43. Oh yes, I must be crazy!

Why, what makes me think this type of thing might occur???

:crazy: indeed

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/02/government-sachs-goldmans_n_210561.html

TREASURY DEPARTMENT
Henry Paulson: Served as Treasury Secretary under President George W. Bush.
Was CEO of Goldman from 1999 to 2006.

Robert Rubin: Served as Treasury Secretary under President Clinton.
Previously, he was co-chairman of Goldman from 1990 to 1992.

Robert K. Steel: Served as Under Secretary of the Treasury for Domestic Finance, the principal adviser to the secretary on matters of domestic finance and led the department's activities with respect to the domestic financial system, fiscal policy and operations, governmental assets and liabilities, and related economic and financial matters.
Retired from Goldman as a vice chairman of the firm in 2004, where he worked as head of equities for Europe and head of the Equities Division in New York.

Mark Patterson: Chief of Staff to Secretary Tim Geithner
Was director of government affairs at Goldman.

Dan Jester: Key adviser to Geithner, who played a key role in shaping the takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Was strategic officer at Goldman.

Steve Shafran: Adviser helping to shape Treasury's effort to guarantee money market funds.
Was expert in corporate restructuring at Goldman.

Kendrick Wilson: Brought in to advise former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, another Goldman alum -- after a personal call from his old Harvard Business School classmate, George W. Bush -- to advise him on how to fix the financial markets. Paulson brought Wilson to Goldman in 1998 from Lazard Freres. Before that, Wilson was president of Ranieri & Co., which was established by Lew Ranieri. While at Salomon Brothers in the 1970s, Ranieri pioneered mortgage-backed securities, the exotic financial instruments that helped stoke the mortgage bubble. In other words, the man brought in to fend off a financial crisis appears to be a protege of one of the men who helped cause it.
Was senior investment banker at Goldman.

TARP
Neel T. Kashkari: Appointed by Paulson to oversee the $700 billion TARP fund and was considered Paulson's right hand man during the crisis, all at the tender age of 35. Kashkari was criticized for the lack of oversight of the funds disbursement, which he said would have been impossible since the funs are fungible. This assertion has been largely refuted by Neil Barofsky, the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program. Kashkari was also responsible for recruiting Reuben Jeffrey.
Was technology investment banker for Goldman in San Francisco from 2004 to 2006.

Reuben Jeffrey: Selected by fellow Goldman alum Kashkari as the interim chief investment officer for the bailout. He was formerly the chairman of the CFTC, a role currently held by fellow Goldmanite Gary Gensler, as well as Under Secretary of State for Economic, Energy, and Agricultural Affairs.
Was executive for 18 years at Goldman, beginning in 1983.

Edward C. Forst: Left his post as executive vice president at Harvard to serve as an advisor on setting up TARP, but has since returned to the school.
Was global head of the Investment Management Division at Goldman for 14 years.

FEDERAL RESERVE
William Dudley: President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Was former chief economist and advisory director at Goldman where he worked from 1986 to 2007.

Stephen Friedman: Was chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York until May 2009, when he was pressured to resign after buying Goldman shares in December and January. Previously, he was director of President George W. Bush's National Economic Council.
Joined Goldman in 1966 and was co-chairman from 1990 to 1994.

COMMODITIIES FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION
Gary Gensler: Appointed by Obama to head the CFTC. This was the commission headed by Brooksley Born in the late 1990's, when Alan Greenspan and Robert Rubin overruled her attempts to regulate credit-default swaps; fellow Goldmanite Reuben Jeffrey also held this position. Gensler worked in the Treasury Department as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury from 1997-1999 and as Under Secretary from 1999-2001, a position he received from Lawrence Summers.
Was partner in Goldman from 1979-1996

OTHER
Sonal Shah: Appointed to Office of Social Innovation and Civic Participation and an Advisory Board Member for the Obama-Biden Transition Project in 2008. Shah had previously held a variety of positions in the Treasury Department from 1995 to early 2002.
Was a former Vice President at Goldman from 2004 to 2007.

Joshua Bolten: Former chief of staff with the Bush administration as well as former director of the Office of Management and Budget until 2006.
Was executive director of Government Affairs for Goldman Sachs from 1994 to 1999. Bolten was instrumental in recruiting his fellow Goldman alum Henry Paulson as Treasury Secretary.

Jon Corzine: A strong supporter and political ally of Obama, Corzine is currently the governor of New Jersey. Before being elected governor, he served as the New Jersey representative to the U.S. Congress from 2001-2006, where he served on the Banking and Budget Committees.
Began working for Goldman in 1975 and worked his way up to chairman and co-CEO before being pushed out in 1998.

Robert Zoellick: Currently serves as president of the World Bank and previously was deputy secretary of state.
Was previously a managing director at Goldman, which he joined in 2006.

James Johnson: Was involved in the vice-presidential selection process for the Obama campaign and served as president and CEO of Fannie Mae.
Board member of Goldman.

Kenneth D. Brody: Was former president and chairman of the Export-Import Bank of the US.
Worked for Goldman for 20 years, founded and heading up its high-technology investment banking group and leading the firm's real-estate investment banking group.

Sidney Weinberg: Served as vice-chair for FDR's War Production Board during World War II.
The head of Goldman from 1930 to 1969, nicknamed "Mr. Wall Street," he worked his way up at the firm after starting as a $3-a-week janitor's assistant.

LOBBYISTS
Richard Gephardt: Was House Majority Leader from 1989 to 1995 and House Minority Leader from 1995 to 2003.
His lobbying firm was hired by Goldman to represent its interests on issues related to TARP.

Michael Paese: Former top staffer to Rep. Barney Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.
Is Goldman's new top lobbyist. He will join the firm as director of government affairs - last year, that position was occupied by Mark Patterson, now the chief of staff at the Treasury Department. Paese has swung through the revolving doors several times - he previously worked at JPMorgan and Mercantile Bankshares and was senior minority counsel at the Financial Services Committee.

Faryar Shirzad: Former top economic aide to President George W. Bush and Republican counsel to the Senate Finance Committee.
He now lobbies the government on behalf of Goldman Sachs as the firm's Global Head of the Office of Government Affairs.

Richard Y. Roberts: Former SEC commissioner.
Now working as a principal at RR&G LLC, which was hired by Goldman to lobby on TARP.

Steven Elmendorf: Former chief of staff to then-House minority Leader Rich Gephardt.
Now runs his own lobbying firm, where Goldman is one of his clients.

Robert Cogorno: Former Gephardt aide and one-time floor director for Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), the No. 2 House Democrat.
Works for Elmendorf Strategies, where he lobbies for Goldman and Citigroup.

Chris Javens: Ex-tax policy adviser to Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley.
Now lobbies for Goldman.

GOVERNMENT - GOLDMAN
E. Gerald Corrigan was president of the New York Fed from 1985 to 1993. He joined Goldman Sachs in 1994 and currently is a partner and managing director; he was also appointed chairman of GS Bank USA, the firm's holding company, in September 2008.

Lori E Laudien: Former counsel for the Senate Finance Committee in 1996-1997
Has been a lobbyist for Goldman since 2005.

Marti Thomas: Executive Floor Assistant to Dick Gephardt from 1989-1998, he went on to serve in the Treasury Department as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Tax and Budget from 1998-1999, and as Assistant Secretary in Legal Affairs and Public Policy in 2000.
Joined Goldman as the Federal Legislative Affairs Leader from 2007-2009.

Kenneth Connolly: Was staff director of the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee).
Became a Vice President at Goldman in 2008.

Arthur Levitt: The longest-serving SEC chairman (1993 to 2001).
Hired by Goldman in June 2009 as an adviser on public policy and other matters.

[wtmusic]

45. Bottom line.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=349820&mesg_id=357648

[wtmusic]

44. A few other people who think Svensmark is full of it.

Cosmic rays and global warming – Erlykin et al. (2010) A brief review article. “Is global warming man made or is it caused by the effects of solar activity on cosmic rays as claimed by some? Here we describe our search for evidence to distinguish between these claims. … In our view the jury is back and the verdict is that cosmic rays and solar irradiance are not guilty for most of the Global Warming. Nevertheless, they could be responsible for a contribution and we look forward to future experiments such as CLOUD at CERN which should be able to quantify to what extent ionization plays a part in the production of aerosols, the precursors of cloud formation.”

Sudden Cosmic Ray Decreases: No Change of Global Cloud Cover – Calogovic et al. (2010) “Here we report on an alternative and stringent test of the CRC-hypothesis by searching for a possible influence of sudden GCR decreases (so-called Forbush decreases) on clouds. We find no response of global cloud cover to Forbush decreases at any altitude and latitude.”

Cosmic ray decreases and changes in the liquid water cloud fraction over the oceans – Laken et al. (2009) “Svensmark et al. (2009) have recently claimed that strong galactic cosmic ray (GCR) decreases during ‘Forbush Decrease (FD) events’ are followed by decreases in both the global liquid water cloud fraction (LCF) and other closely correlated atmospheric parameters. To test the validity of these findings we have concentrated on just one property, the MODIS LCF and examined two aspects: 1) The statistical chance that the decrease observed in the LCF is abnormal. 2) The likelihood of the observed delay (∼5 to 9 days) being physically connected to the FD events. On both counts we conclude that LCF variations are unrelated to FD events: Both the pattern and timing of observed LCF changes are irreconcilable with current theoretical pathways. Additionally, a zonal analysis of LCF variations also offers no support to the claimed relationship, as the observed anomaly is not found to vary latitudinally in conjunction with cosmic ray intensity.”

Results from the CERN pilot CLOUD experiment – Duplissy et al. (2009) “During a 4-week run in October–November 2006, a pilot experiment was performed at the CERN Proton Synchrotron in preparation for the CLOUD1 experiment, whose aim is to study the possible influence of cosmic rays on clouds. … Overall, the exploratory measurements provide suggestive evidence for ion-induced nucleation or ion-ion recombination as sources of aerosol particles. … In conclusion, therefore, the experimental variables were not well enough controlled to exclude the presence of ion-induced nucleation on the basis of Fig. 7; it merely does not support the presence of strong contributions from this source.”

On the correlation between cosmic ray intensity and cloud cover – Erlykin et al. (2009) “Various aspects of the connection between cloud cover (CC) and cosmic rays (CR) are analyzed. Most features of this connection viz. an altitude dependence of the absolute values of CC and CR intensity, no evidence for the correlation between the ionization of the atmosphere and cloudiness, the absence of correlations in short-term low cloud cover (LCC) and CR variations indicate that there is no direct causal connection between LCC and CR in spite of the evident long-term correlation between them. … The most significant argument against causal connection of CR and LCC is the anticorrelation between LCC and the medium cloud cover (MCC).”

Atmospheric data over a solar cycle: no connection between galactic cosmic rays and new particle formation – Kulmala et al. (2009) “More than a decade ago, variations in galactic cosmic rays were suggested to closely correlate with variations in atmospheric cloud cover and therefore constitute a driving force behind aerosol-cloud-climate interactions. Later, the enhancement of atmospheric aerosol particle formation by ions generated from cosmic rays was proposed as a physical mechanism explaining this correlation. Here, we report unique observations on atmospheric aerosol formation based on measurements at the SMEAR II station, Finland, over a solar cycle (years 1996–2008) that shed new light on these presumed relationships. Our analysis shows that none of the quantities related to aerosol formation correlates with the cosmic ray-induced ionisation intensity (CRII). We also examined the contribution of ions to new particle formation on the basis of novel ground-based and airborne observations. A consistent result is that ion-induced formation contributes typically less than 10% to the number of new particles, which would explain the missing correlation between CRII and aerosol formation.”

Can cosmic rays affect cloud condensation nuclei by altering new particle formation rates? – Pierce & Adams (2009) “In this paper, we present the first calculations of the magnitude of the ion-aerosol clear-air mechanism using a general circulation model with online aerosol microphysics. In our simulations, changes in CCN from changes in cosmic rays during a solar cycle are two orders of magnitude too small to account for the observed changes in cloud properties; consequently, we conclude that the hypothesized effect is too small to play a significant role in current climate change.”

On the possible connection between cosmic rays and clouds – Erlykin et al. (2009) “Various aspects of the connection between cloud cover (CC) and cosmic rays (CR) are analysed. We argue that the anticorrelation between the temporal behaviour of low (LCC) and middle (MCC) clouds evidences against causal connection between them and CR. Nevertheless, if a part of low clouds (LCC) is connected and varies with CR, then its most likely value averaged over the Globe should not exceed 20% at the two standard deviation level.”

Solar activity and the mean global temperature – Erlykin et al. (2009) This study finds that the changes in the cosmic ray rate lags the changes in temperature. “The cyclic variation in the cosmic ray rate is observed to be delayed by 2–4 years relative to the temperature, the solar irradiance and daily sun spot variations suggesting that the origin of the correlation is more likely to be direct solar activity than cosmic rays. Assuming that the correlation is caused by such solar activity, we deduce that the maximum recent increase in the mean surface temperature of the Earth which can be ascribed to this activity is ~<14% of the observed global warming.”

Cosmic rays, cloud condensation nuclei and clouds – a reassessment using MODIS data – Kristjánsson et al. (2008) “Averaging the results from the 22 Forbush decrease events that were considered, no statistically significant correlations were found between any of the four cloud parameters and GCR, when autocorrelations were taken into account.”

Testing the proposed causal link between cosmic rays and cloud cover – Sloan & Wolfendale (2008) “A decrease in the globally averaged low level cloud cover, deduced from the ISCCP infrared data, as the cosmic ray intensity decreased during the solar cycle 22 was observed by two groups. The groups went on to hypothesize that the decrease in ionization due to cosmic rays causes the decrease in cloud cover, thereby explaining a large part of the currently observed global warming. We have examined this hypothesis to look for evidence to corroborate it. None has been found and so our conclusions are to doubt it. From the absence of corroborative evidence, we estimate that less than 23%, at the 95% confidence level, of the 11 year cycle change in the globally averaged cloud cover observed in solar cycle 22 is due to the change in the rate of ionization from the solar modulation of cosmic rays. “

Cosmic Rays and The Climate – Sloan (2008) Summarizes different views on the issue. “A number of papers and posters were presented at the ECRS on the subject of the relationship between cosmic rays (CR) and both the climate and the weather. I was asked by the organisers to attempt to summarise them.”

Cosmic Rays and Global Warming – Sloan & Wolfendale (2007) “It has been claimed by others that observed temporal correlations of terrestrial cloud cover with `the cosmic ray intensity’ are causal. The possibility arises, therefore, of a connection between cosmic rays and Global Warming. If true, the implications would be very great. We have examined this claim to look for evidence to corroborate it. So far we have not found any and so our tentative conclusions are to doubt it. Such correlations as appear are more likely to be due to the small variations in solar irradiance, which, of course, correlate with cosmic rays. We estimate that less than 15% of the 11-year cycle warming variations are due to cosmic rays and less than 2% of the warming over the last 35 years is due to this cause.”

Solar activity, cosmic rays, clouds and climate – an update – Kristjánsson et al. (2004) “Eighteen years of monthly averaged low cloud cover data from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project are correlated with both total solar irradiance and galactic cosmic ray flux from neutron monitors. When globally averaged low cloud cover is considered, consistently higher correlations (but with opposite sign) are found between low cloud variations and solar irradiance variations than between variations in cosmic ray flux and low cloud cover.”

Pattern of Strange Errors Plagues Solar Activity and Terrestrial Climate Data – Damon & Laut (2004) “Links have been made between cosmic rays and cloud cover, first total cloud cover and then only low clouds, and between solar cycle lengths and northern hemisphere land temperatures. … Analysis of a number of published graphs that have played a major role in these debates and that have been claimed to support solar hypotheses shows that the apparent strong correlations displayed on these graphs have been obtained by incorrect handling of the physical data.”

Solar activity and terrestrial climate: an analysis of some purported correlations – Laut (2003) “The last decade has seen a revival of various hypotheses claiming a strong correlation between solar activity and a number of terrestrial climate parameters: Links between cosmic rays and cloud cover, first total cloud cover and then only low clouds, and between solar cycle lengths and Northern Hemisphere land temperatures. These hypotheses play an important role in the scientific as well as in the public debate about the possibility or reality of a man-made global climate change. I have analyzed a number of published graphs which have played a major role in these debates and which have been claimed to support solar hypotheses. My analyses show that the apparent strong correlations displayed on these graphs have been obtained by an incorrect handling of the physical data.”

Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate – Carslaw et al. (2002) A review paper. “It has been proposed that Earth’s climate could be affected by changes in cloudiness caused by variations in the intensity of galactic cosmic rays in the atmosphere. This proposal stems from an observed correlation between cosmic ray intensity and Earth’s average cloud cover over the course of one solar cycle. Some scientists question the reliability of the observations, whereas others, who accept them as reliable, suggest that the correlation may be caused by other physical phenomena with decadal periods or by a response to volcanic activity or El Niño.”

A new look at possible connections between solar activity, clouds and climate – Kristjánsson et al. (2002) “We present a re-evaluation of the hypothesis of a coupling between galactic cosmic rays, clouds and climate. We have used two independent estimates of low cloud cover from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project, covering 16.5 years of data. The cloud cover data are used in conjunction with estimates of galactic cosmic ray flux and measurements of solar irradiance. It is found that solar irradiance correlates better and more consistently with low cloud cover than cosmic ray flux does. The correlations are considerably lower when multichannel retrievals during daytime are used than retrievals using IR-channels only.”

Some results relevant to the discussion of a possible link between cosmic rays and the Earth’s climate – Wagner et al. (2001) “However, the smoothed combined flux of 10Be and 36Cl at Summit, Greenland, from 20–60 kyr B.P. (proportional to the geomagnetically modulated cosmic ray flux) is unrelated to the corresponding δ18O and CH4 data (interpreted as supraregional climate proxies). (3) Furthermore, although a comparison of the incoming neutron flux with cloud cover in Switzerland over the last 5 decades shows a significant correlation at times during the 1980s and 1990s, this does not occur during the rest of the period.”

Sunshine records from Ireland: cloud factors and possible links to solar activity and cosmic rays – Pallé & Butler (2001) “The importance of cosmic rays as a link between solar activity and climate was assessed from a study of the ISCCP-D2 satellite cloud factors and Irish sunshine data. Whilst these results confirmed the strong correlation between total cloud factor and cosmic rays over non-tropical oceans between 1984 and 1991 previously reported, it was found that this correlation did not hold in the subsequent period 1991-1994. Other work has established a link through specifically low cloud. Indirect evidence of cloud formation by cosmic rays from a variation in the sunshine factor following Forbush decreases, and over the sunspot cycle, was mostly negative. Although a dip at seven years past sunspot minimum is evident in the sunshine factor for all four sites and in most seasons, it is of marginal statistical significance.”

Cloud cover variations over the United States: An influence of cosmic rays or solar variability? – Udelhofen & Cess (2001) “To investigate whether galactic cosmic rays (GCR) may influence cloud cover variations, we analyze cloud cover anomalies from 1900–1987 over the United States. … The cloud cover variations are in phase with the solar cycle and not the GCR.”

Is there a cosmic ray signal in recent variations in global cloudiness and cloud radiative forcing? – Kristjánsson et al. (2000) “In order to evaluate a recent hypothesis of a coupling between galactic cosmic rays, clouds, and climate we have investigated temporal variations in global cloudiness and radiative fluxes at the top of the atmosphere. … When the results are related to temporal variations in cosmic ray activity, we do not find support for a coupling between cosmic rays, total cloudiness, and radiative forcing of climate. … The net radiative effect of clouds during the period 1985–1989 shows an enhanced cooling effect despite a reduction in both total and low cloud cover. This contradicts the simple relationship between cloud cover and radiation assumed in the cosmic-ray-cloud-climate hypothesis.”

Are Cosmic Rays Influencing Oceanic Cloud Coverage – Or Is It Only El Niño? – Farrar (2000) “The monthly average (C2) cloud coverage data produced by the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) for the period of July 1986–June 1991 show strong global and regional cloud coverage variations associated with the El Niño of 1986–1987. The Pacific Ocean, in particular, shows strong regional variations in cloud coverage. These agree well with contemporaneous satellite observations of broadband shortwave infrared cloud forcing measured by the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment. Svensmark and Friis-Christensen (1997) noted a similarity between the shape of the timeseries curve of average cloud coverage fraction for mid- to low-latitude ocean-areas and the time series curve of cosmic ray flux intensity. They proposed a causal relationship – a `missing link’ for solar cycle influence on Earth climate. Further spatial and temporal analysis of the same ISCCP C2 data in this paper indicates that the cloud coverage variation patterns are those to be expected for the atmospheric circulation changes characteristic of El Niño, weakening the case for cosmic rays as a climatic forcing factor.”

[originalpckelly]

40. Actually, they do whizz through your head...

but it's probably not the most professional term to use. Sounds more like popscience to me.

[FiveGoodMen]

7. "It's happening again now to every planet in the solar system including Earth"

"The poles move because of the changing flow of molten iron in Earth's core, which drives the planet's huge magnetic dynamo."

If both statements are actually true, does that mean that an outside force is affecting the cores of all the planets?

Otherwise, why would they all go at once?

[Qutzupalotl]

13. The first quoted sentence is poorly worded.

Fluctuations in magnetosphere are ongoing with all the planets, but not all are at the same stage. Mars, for instance, is believed to have had its pole reversal (or more accurately, a neutralization of its magnetic field) eons ago. The resulting exposure to the solar wind is believed to have literally blown away its atmosphere.

That's not to say the same thing will happen on Earth if/when we see a big polar shift. I doubt the outcome can be predicted with any certainty, but I'll let the experts chime in on that.

[FiveGoodMen]

20. So the first sentence should have been

"It happens on all the planets (except Mars at least)..."

rather than

"It's happening again now ..."?

[Confusious]

23. Venus has no magnetic field, neither does mercury

I don't know how they can say it happens on other planets, since we've never been there to test it.

[FiveGoodMen]

30. Well!

Kind of surprising about Venus.

Anyway, the piece (!) seemed to be anti-climate-change propaganda and this would fit right in there.

I've already heard "ALL the planets are getting warmer" so I guess "ALL the planets are having pole reversals" -- when it isn't really accurate -- fits right in there.

[theophilus]

8. I don't know about this, but a friend repeated the "wobble" part as an explanation

for climate changes. This seems to be a right-wing meme to do away with any need for global warming explanations (climate change). The mention of the wobble was followed by the statement, "It's nothing big. It's nothing to worry about." In other words there is no man made climate change.

[wtmusic]

17. The wobble effect is tiny compared to warming caused by humans.

The wobbles cause ice ages, anthropogenic global warming is far more severe:

"Milankovic climate oscillations, the glacial-interglacial climate swings associated with perturbations of Earth's orbit, provide a precise evaluation of equilibrium climate sensitivity, i.e., the response to changed boundary conditions after the atmosphere and ocean have sufficient time to restore planetary energy balance.

<>

Thus paleoclimatologists have debated in recent years whether, in the absence of humans, a new ice age would have begun within the next few thousand years or whether the Holocene interglacial period would have continued for another 20,000 years or so until the next time that conditions favor growth of Northern Hemisphere ice. That debate is purely academic, as human-made climate forcings now dwarf Milankovic effects."

http://columbia.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1&id=82345f4c72&e=5bbc9310b8

Please forward to your friend.

[theophilus]

22. That is what I figured. "They" are looking for any excuse other than

human caused climate change.

[Confusious]

19. The wobble happens over tens of thousands of years

You wouldn't notice.

[derby378]

16. Wonder if that would explain the ice sheet covering Dallas/Fort Worth?

Really, how many suckers are still going to cough up $200 to stand outside Cowboys Stadium on Sunday, complete with freezing temperatures and chunks of ice falling from the roof, when they can watch the Super Bowl in comfort at a local sports bar?

[jakeXT]

21. We are 500.000 years overdue and without ionosphere no atmosphere see Mars

A pole shift refers to the Earth's magnetic field reversing its polarity. If a magnetic reversal occurred today, compasses would point south rather than north.

In the past 15 million years scientists found pole shifts occurred four times every 1 million years. Though this averages out to once every 250,000 years, switches do not occur at regular intervals. During one period in the Cretaceous, polarity remained constant for as long as 30 million years, though this is believed to be an anomaly. The last pole shift took place 790,000 years ago; causing some scientists to believe we're due, while others speculate a reversal is already underway.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-pole-shift.htm


The findings suggest that these crustal fields could have played an important role in the past evolution of Mars' atmosphere. If, as some Mars experts think, much of the planet's atmosphere was stripped away by the solar wind, these maps show where the solar wind did, and continues to do, the most damage.

"The ionosphere is what shields the densest part of Mars' atmosphere from being swept away by the solar wind," said David Mitchell, a research physicist at UC Berkeley's Space Sciences Laboratory who compiled the map from spacecraft data. "Our data show for the first time that the crustal magnetic fields are a major factor limiting erosion of the atmosphere in some regions. These fields are like umbrellas scattered over the surface protecting the atmosphere."

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/mars-atmosphere-00b.html



The one thing I don't get is, what is the cause ? I believe it's inside the earth and has nothing to do with he sun

[Confusious]

24. what is the cause ?

The circulation of magma in the core of the planet creates the magnetic field.

Why it switches??

What causes the circulation?? Maybe the moon.

[kentuck]

33. I have noticed that for the last 2 or 3 months...

Orions Belt has been in the eastern sky at about the same place. Unlike in the past few years, the three stars in the "belt" have been mostly north and south, up and down. It did not turn east and west as in the past? Of course, this is the view from earth. It seems the earth has stabilized in its orbit, rather than the opposite? Has anyone else noticed this??

[Odin2005]

34. This thread is drowning in woo.

[slackmaster]

37. I knew a woman whose last name was Woo. Her nickname was Cutesie.

Cutesie Woo.

[originalpckelly]

38. I myself have drowned in woo too...

but I was nuts, what's their excuse?

[originalpckelly]

39. Pole shifts occur very often around here...

especially on hot days.

:P

But seriously, it is slowly happening. We're still here as a species, which indicates we survived the last one. We'll probably adapt if it shifts all the way in our lifetimes (not gonna happen). Boy scouts will have to get new compasses. Birds might be a little fucked up, as it's theorized the small amount of magnetite some migratory birds have in their brains helps them navigate using the magnetic field of the Earth.

But other than this, we'll be fine folks.

It won't probably happen in our lifetimes. Let's stop with the nonsense already, and be a little rational.

On my list of priorities, pole shift is not high up there.