Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
arc

A Model for the Solar Magnetic Forcing of Earth's Climate History?

Recommended Posts

I believe I have found a link between the Sun and Earth’s magnetic field strength and climate history. I know what you’re thinking; crackpot. We’ll let me show you what I have and then we can judge it fairly.This hypothesis is related to my plate tectonic thread. If you have not read “Plate Tectonic Mechanism?“ you should familiarize yourself with posts # 4-8 before posting here to save time. It will introduce you to the concept and give weight to the possibilities of climate forcing from strain energy released from the mantle.

 

 

Abstract



This hypothesis regards the current understanding of atmospheric variability. The best science available has been focused primarily on several different forcing agents. The most recent warming trend that began around 1850 +/- has been attributed to anthropological CO2 emissions. The longer record going back to the beginning of the Holocene is highly varied in temperature with ice core records showing both gradual and sudden temperature swings in both directions. Currently there does not seem to be a single model that can account for the warming that categorizes the beginning of the current inter-glacial, the rapid temperature reversals of the Younger Dryes, the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age and other historic climate phenomena that it can be applied to. Not to mention the controversial warming of the last century and a half.


There has been difficulty in securing a single forcing agent that can be linked to the variations seen in historic climate records. This has resulted in a complicated climate formula of solar iridescence, fresh water flows that shut down the thermohaline, Milankovitch cycles, volcanic eruptions and many other theoretical mechanisms to solve the current climate variation puzzle.


I believe the simplest solution is likely the most accurate. The most obvious straight forward solution with the least number complexities should be the most accurate at predicting the multiple observations seen in the climate record. This model proposes a thermal forcing agent derived from the strain energy of the Earth’s mantle as it is displaced by an outer core's thermal variability. This thesis will show in a practical manner a logical reexamination of previous research to provide a new perspective into this sometimes contentious subject. The thesis will also provide a new level of predictive resolution to historic climate variability

 

 

 

I will briefly describe its basic outline to initiate this thread’s beginning. This NASA article is a good place to start.

 

http://science.nasa...._magneticfield/

 

post-88603-0-20218600-1369195410_thumb.gif

 

A supercomputer model showing flow patterns in Earth'sliquid core.

Dr. Gary A.Glatzmaier - Los Alamos National Laboratory - U.S. Department of Energy.

 

This article states that globally the magnetic field has weakened 10% since the 19th century. And according to Dr. Glatzmaier; "The field is increasing or decreasing all the time," "We know this from studies of the paleomagnetic record." According to the article; Earth’s present-day magnetic field is, in fact, much stronger than normal. The dipole moment, a measure of the intensity of the magnetic field, is now 8 × 1022 amps × m2. That's twice the million-year average of 4× 1022 amps × m2.

 

My hypothesis simply requires that the amperage and temperature of the molten iron of the Earth's magnetic field generator will vary over million year time periods, and that is verified in the above. An increase in amperage will always include an increase in temperature. The temperature increase will in turn always produce thermal expansion of the molten iron. This will displace the mantle and release strain energy in the form of heat during its outward expansion. The slow increase in the mantles circumference will require the crust to separate and adjust to release the continual tension.


When the field generator's cycle changes to a lower amperage the process reverses to slow contraction with the crust now

loading up its raised mass as gravitational potential energy that will be displaced into the trenches by the divergent plate boundaries recent infill. If the cycles are widely spaced from extra infill or a long period of decrease in temperature, it will produce excessive kinetic movement. The resulting increased crustal compression will surpass the trenches rates of resistance and redirect the energy to the vertical displacement of rock into mountain complexes.


This is the most basic description of the electromagnetic/strain energy mechanism. If it does not seem to be a viable source for this thesis please read http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/ to familiarize you to this highly accurate model of a plate tectonic mechanism. If you are in need of additional proof of its predictive power please go to my profile page to access my plate tectonic site for a comprehensive explanation. I hope the highly accurate predictive quality of the observations will be satisfactory to most critics.


The strain energy imposed on the mantle will increase with distance from its source of displacement at the outer core, with the crust mantle boundary producing the greatest amount energy from its surface tension release. This thermal energy should find its way to and through the crust and into the ocean that has a crustal contact area of some 68% of the Earth’s surface.

This heat energy should have a signature in the ocean system. There should be a measurable change in thermal dependent phenomena such as the Global Ocean Conveyor and the Atlantic Meridional Overturn Circulation. Can the solar magnetic variable be linked to a measured large scale ocean thermal anomaly?

 

Let’s look at a solar magnetic valuation.

 

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/23sep_solarwind/

 

This is a Sept 23, 2008 article in NASA Science News website titled; Solar Wind Loses Power , Hits 50-year Low.

 

“The Sun’s solar wind that has been measured since the early 1960’s, has lost since the mid 1990’s, 3 percent of its speed. The change in pressure comes from reductions in temperature and density. The solar wind is 13 percent cooler and 20 percent less dense. In addition, the Sun’s magnetic field has weakened by more than 30 percent since the mid 90’s”.


A 30% decrease in solar magnetic field strength since mid 90’s.

Now let’s look at an ocean thermal metric.


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7068/abs/nature04385.html

On Dec 1st, 2005, A Prof. Bryden and his colleagues reported in Nature that the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) seems to have weakened by about 30 percent in the last decade.


O.K. A 30% decrease in magnetic field strength since the mid 90’s correlated to a 30% decrease in ocean conveyor output in the same time period.

 

What do other’s think about this research.

 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v439/n7074/full/439256a.html


19 January 2006, Nature, News Feature article titled; Climate change: A sea change by Quirin Schiermeier; Article details reactions to the Bryden results. Points made bySchiermeier include the following:


- The results are a surprise to scientists in the field.
- Modeling suggests that increase of fresh water flows large enough to shut down the thermohaline circulation would be an

order of magnitude greater than currently estimated to be occurring, and such increases are unlikely to become critical within the next hundred years; this is hard to reconcile with the Bryden measurements.


Maybe Prof. Bryden is wrong, it looks like a complicated system to measure. Maybe there’s more data?

 

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL049801.shtml


12/24/2011; Observation of decadal change in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation using 10 years of continuous transport data.

Matthias Lankhorst Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, California, USA Torsten Kanzow Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, Kiel, Germany

This report presents the first observational record of MOC measurements that is continuous and sufficiently long to exhibit decadal-scale changes, here a decrease by 20% over the observational period (Jan. 2000–June 2009) Recently, some numerical model simulations have produced results that show a weakening of the MOC since the 1990's and observational confirmation of this now is a high priority.

 

That’s interesting, but not proof. I need to find more data that shows solar magnetic forcing.


http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/clisci10kb.html

Gerard C. Bond, a researcher at the Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory has suggested that the ~1,500 year cycle of ice-buildup in the North Atlantic is related to solar cycles; when the sun is at its most energetic, the Earth’s magnetic field is

strengthened, blocking more cosmic rays, which are a type of radiation coming in from deep space…… High levels of carbon-14 suggests an inactive sun. In his research Bond noted that increases in icebergs and drift ice occurred at the
same times as the increase in carbon-14, indicating the sun was weaker at such times.

Eight Bond events have been identified beginning about 11.5 thousand years ago and the last being the Little Ice Age

that NASA's http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Glossary defines; a cold period that lasted from about A.D. 1550 to about A.D. 1850. There were three maxima, beginning about 1650, about 1770, and 1850, each separated by slight warming intervals.

 

GRAPH A
post-88603-0-53597300-1369195563_thumb.png


http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0095-00/fs-0095-00.pdf

Image above courtesy of USGS

GRAPH A

This is a USGS graph from August 2000 showing carbon-14 or 14C content in tree rings going back in time 1,100 years. This is not a temperature proxy but a solar magnetic field energy level proxy, it is a count of the concentration, or lack thereof, of carbon-14 that has been measured in a chronological sampling of the individual seasonal rings of trees of similar growth characteristics. The tree ring content is at a specific value that is a measure of the atmospheric 14C. The 14C is a rare form of the three naturally occurring carbons, with 12C concentrations at 99%, 13C at 1% and 14C at trace amounts of 1 part per trillion (0.0000000001%) that make up the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.


The 14C is derived from very high energy particles from space, oddly named 100+ years ago as cosmic rays. The fraction of 14C in each sample relative to the other two types of carbon (12C and 13C) gives comparative measure of the Sun's magnetic field strength at that specific point in the tree ring samples genesis. It illustrates the level, or amount of cosmic rays that can enter the Earth's magnetic field at that given period in time. When the Sun's magnetic field is in a period of increased solar flux, the cosmic rays are deflected at the far reaches of our solar system. But when the Sun's field is weaker the particles can enter the envelope of the solar magnetic field known as the heliosphere and travel into the orbits of the inner planets including Earth.

When the Sun's field is weak the Earth's field responds in kind, allowing an increased amount of charged cosmic ray particles to enter the upper atmosphere where they are subjected to various transformations, including the production of neutrons that in turn become through additional reactions carbon-14. The 14C mixes into the atmosphere and undergoes one more process to form radioactive carbon dioxide. Plants and trees take up the carbon dioxide during photosynthesis incorporating the CO2 carbons 12C, 13C and the radioactive isotope 14C into its cellular structure.

 

The 14C gives an extremely unique record of magnetic field variability. And I believe a way to analyze and solve the current unanswered questions surrounding the thermal forcing of the planet. The various maximums and minimums, Medieval or Maunder for example, on the graph were identified not as periods of high or low 14C, but as a high and low numerical count of sunspot content. This phenomenon is joined by the precise filtration that the Sun's varying magnetic field energy does to cosmic ray numbers. The graph shows this in their inverse values. The stronger the field is the lower the 14C count, and the weaker the field the higher the 14C.

 

GRAPH B

post-88603-0-41497700-1369195713_thumb.png

 

This graph and text created by Robert A. Rohde, who has no connection with this author or this paper, was provided through Wikipedia Creative Commons.


GRAPH B

This figure shows two different proxies of solar activity during the last several hundred years. In red is shown the Group Sunspot Number (Rg) as reconstructed from historical observations by Hoyt and Schatten (1998a, 1998b). In blue is shown the beryllium-10 concentration (104 atoms/(gram of ice)) as measured in an annually layered ice core from Dye-3, Greenland (Beer et al. 1994).


Both of these proxies are related to solar magnetic activity. Sunspots are darker, cooler regions of the sun's surface associated with high magnetic flux. Higher numbers of sunspots indicate a more active sun with stronger and more complicated magnetic fields. The dominant change in sunspots reflects the quasi-11 year solar magnetic cycle. The quiet period observed from 1645 to 1710 is known as the Maunder Minimum and is associated with a near zero abundance of sunspots.

Beryllium-10 is a cosmogenic isotope created in the atmosphere by galactic cosmic rays. Because the flux of such cosmic rays is affected by the intensity of the interplanetary magnetic field carried by the solar wind, the rate at which Beryllium-10 is created reflects changes in solar activity. A more active sun results in lower beryllium concentrations (note inverted scale on plot). Since the atmospheric residence time for beryllium is not more than a few years, it is also possible to resolve the solar magnetic cycle in beryllium concentrations. *Beryllium measurements, such as these, are the best evidence that the solar magnetic cycle did not cease even during the period with no evident sunspots. The dark curves are 30 year averages of the data.

 

*Now we can see that the solar magnetic field component may only be coupled to the sun spot mechanism during higher energy periods of field generation.

 

GRAPH C

E. Bard, G. M. Raisbeck, F. Yiou, and J. Jouzel, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 150, 453 (1997).

 

post-88603-0-44452600-1369195831.png

 

GRAPH C

Time series of the sunspot number as reconstructed from 10Be concentrations in ice cores from Antarctica (red) and Greenland (green). The corresponding profiles are bounded by the actual reconstruction results (upper envelope to shaded areas) and by the reconstructed values corrected at low values of the SN (sunspots)(solid curves) by taking into account the residual level of solar activity in the limit of vanishing SN (see Fig. 1). The thick black curve shows the observed group sunspot number since 1610 and the thin blue curve gives the (scaled) 14C concentration in tree rings, corrected for the variation of the geomagnetic field [20]. The horizontal bars with attached arrows indicate the times of great minima and maxima [21]: Dalton minimum (Dm), Maunder minimum (Mm), Spo¨rer minimum (Sm), Wolf minimum (Wm), Oort minimum (Om), and medieval maximum (MM). The temporal lag of 14C with respect to the sunspot number is due to the long attenuation time for 14C.

 

GRAPH D

post-88603-0-81143400-1369195971_thumb.png

 

This is the same USGS graph with overlays by this author.


The first thing I want to comment about is the vertical rise of the carbon-14 on the right side of the graph (remember the 14C content is inverted), it is actually declining due to increasing solar magnetic flux, it's content is inverted compared to the currently observed and debated temperature rise (shown below in graph E). In this model, carbon-14 (14C) and Beryllium-10 (10Be) are inverted to the magnetic field strength as a portion of the more stable and slower changing content of carbon-12 CO2 in the atmosphere.


An important point is this 14C variation is not due to any Earth bound forcing agent. The vertical rise (reduction in 14C content) from about 1820 for example, is entirely the product of solar magnetic flux increasing in strength, and as Bond noted strengthening Earth’s field. This is mutual inductive coupling and according to this model, should produce the increased amperage noted in the above NASA article of Dr. Gary A. Glatzmaier - Los Alamos National Laboratory. The Sun's varying field is the only mechanism controlling 14C and 10Be content and timing. This is straight forward and real clear.

But what has the solar thermal radiation been doing during this time? If the solar thermal radiation dropped even .5% we would feel it in the climate cycle.

 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0095-00/fs-0095-00.pdf

Satellite radiometer measurements made over the last 20 years have shown that total solar irradiance varies 0.1 percent over one 11-year sunspot cycle, but that irradiance varies considerably with the wavelength of the electromagnetic radiation (Lean and others, 1995a). The variation of 0.1 percent in total solar irradiance over one sunspot cycle translates to a global tropospheric temperature difference of 0.5° to 1.0°C (Labitzke and van Loon, 1993).

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

-hemispherically, the "Little Ice Age" can only be considered as a modest cooling of the Northern hemisphere during this period of less than 1°C relative to late 20th century levels. "Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis UNEP/GRID-Arendal.

 

It looks like there is enough solar thermal radiation variability to account for historic cooling periods, 0.5 to 1.0 C for an 11 year cycle and the Little Ice Age's 1550-1850 cooling. But some research discounts this as viable forcing agent.


A full-disk multiwavelength extreme ultraviolet image of the sun taken by SDO on March 30, 2010. False colors trace different gas temperatures. Reds are relatively cool (about 60,000 Kelvin, or 107,540 F); blues and greens are hotter (greater than 1 million Kelvin, or 1,799,540 F). Credit: NASA/Goddard/SDOAIA Team

 

post-88603-0-50822100-1369196014_thumb.jpg

 

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/lean2000_irradiance.txt


ABSTRACT (Lean 2000): Because of the dependence of the Sun's irradiance on solar activity, reductions from contemporary levels are expected during the seventeenth century Maunder Minimum. New reconstructions of spectral irradiance are developed since 1600 with absolute scales traceable to space based observations. The long-term variations track the envelope of group sunspot numbers and have amplitudes consistent with the range of Ca II brightness in Sun-like stars. Estimated increases since 1675 are 0.7%, 0.2% and 0.07% in broad ultraviolet, visible/near infrared and infrared spectral bands, with a total irradiance increase of 0.2%.

Well, there it is. A 0.2 % total increase since 1675. If The variation of 0.1 percent in total solar irradiance over one sunspot cycle translates to a global tropospheric temperature difference of 0.5° to 1.0°C (Labitzke and van Loon, 1993). Then what does .2 produce? And could it have reduced energy for the little ice age?

 

We have seen from the graphs and text above that solar thermal radiation variability may not be synchronized to the magnetic field component of the Sun. The next detail is that the actual historic temperature tracks with the solar magnetic energy level. The Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age show atmospheric temperature tracking the 14C (the solar magnetic proxy) in the graph.

 

The current scientific explanation of this would be it is a coincidence. The 14C has an extraterrestrial causation of a radio isotope measured at 1 part per trillion, hard to see a forcing agent in that. All that is left to consider is the solar magnetic energy that regulates the 14C and 10Be is, through mutual inductive coupling is producing a varying amperage and thermal expansion in the Earth's outer core by which the mantle is displaced outward, releasing strain energy as heat. In this tele-connection the 14C and 10Be variation will track with and likely lead the ocean and atmospheric temperatures.


GRAPH E

post-88603-0-64486400-1369191655_thumb.jpg

 

GRAPH E

Now I want to examine the question of why there is a vertical rise in the graphs C and D indicating the declining content of the 14C, a solar magnetic field proxy in graph D and the 10 Be, a sunspot proxy in graph C, that matches in timing the sharp rise in temperature shown in graph E. Current debate contends or refutes the sudden temperature rise in graph E is anthropological. The pro-anthropological side points to the fact that it coincides with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, proposing a link between carbon release during fossil fuel burning and the current temperature anomaly. The carbon, in the form of CO2 gas, has increased in atmospheric content to levels that in various modeling produce "Greenhouse Warming". Current research shows atmospheric sensitivity to increases of the projected levels, which bolsters their argument.

 

 

The counter argument I can make in accordance with this model is the 14C and 10Be in graphs C and D are declining (shown inverted) at the same rate that the temperature is climbing. And as shown, above, the solar magnetic field is always increasing in proportion to the 14C and 10Be decline in content, indicating the solar magnetic component in the graph is in a very strong higher energy level period. And as shown above, the temperature always tracks the 14C which is a proxy for the solar magnetic component. The 14C vertical rise (declining content) in graph D is shown at about 1950 (the most recent content measurement available) to be at or above the Medieval Warm Period level.

 

This indicates to this citizen researcher that the solar magnetic field had been strengthening prior to this period, and through Mutual Inductive Coupling, the magnetic field generator of the Earth will respond with a thermal increase of strain energy heat released from the mantle that will following the 14C signal by a multi decadel delayed forcing of the ocean and then atmosphere. The increase of outer core amperage and concurrent core temperature rise produces a proportional increase of the Atlantic Meridional Overturn Circulation and Global Ocean Conveyor (thermohaline) with concurrent increases in liberated ocean sequestered CO2.There is not an "anthropologic" solution to this extraterrestrial forcing by solar magnetic inductance with 14C and 10Be decline and temperature-CO2 increase synchronicity.


There are many research papers on reconstructed CO2 records using stomatal frequency analysis of fossil leaves. This is one of them.

 

http://www.pnas.org/content/99/19/12011.full.pdf


Rapid atmospheric CO2 changes associated with the 8,200-years-B.P. cooling event.
Friederike Wagner* †, Bent Aaby‡, and Henk Visscher*
*Department of Botanical Palaeoecology, Laboratory of Palaeobotany and Palynology, Utrecht University, Budapestlaan 4, 3584 CD, Utrecht,The Netherlands; and‡Botanical Institute, Department of Ecology, Evolution and Diversity, University of Copenhagen,Øster Farimagsgade 2D, 1353 Copenhagen K, Denmark
Communicated by David L. Dilcher, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, July 15, 2002 (received for review April 20, 2002)

"To corroborate the concept of a coupling between recurrent Holocene cooling pulses and CO2 fluctuations, we document stomatal frequency data that constrain timing and magnitude of CO2 shifts associated with the prominent 8.2-ka-B.P. cooling event. . . . . The reconstructed CO2 record shows a fluctuating pattern (Fig. 2). Inferred CO2 minima with averages of 275 ppm by volume (ppmv) occur at 8,680 years B.P. and between 8,430 and 8,040 years B.P.; prominent maxima with values of 300–325 ppmv occur at 8,640 years B.P. . . . . In effect, there seems to be every indication that the occurrence of Holocene CO2 fluctuations is more consistent with current observations and models of past global temperature changes than the common notion of a relatively stable CO2 regime until the onset of the Industrial Revolution."

 

There is correlation to thermal increases in this revising of historic CO2 content that is showing variability. This research shows CO2 at 300-325 ppmv and as always, it follows behind temperature rise.


If we look at a longer time span record; http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleobefore.html

 

GRAPH F

post-88603-0-72331700-1369192354.gif

 

GRAPH F

The Younger Dryas is the 800 pound gorilla of the climate warming record since the end of the last glacial period. Here's the facts; brief (1,300 ± 70 years) period of glacial conditions and drought. Mean annual temperature in the U.K. dropped to approximately 5 °C (41 °F) The rapid return to glacial conditions in the higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere was sudden and brief, proving difficult to solve due to both rapidity and duration with mechanisms such as solar thermal radiation flux, solar orbital flux, bi-polar see-saw, or even a shutdown of the North Atlantic "Conveyor" by large glacial sourced fresh water fluxes that are unable to provide adequate rapid energy fluxes on what looks like 1,470 year periodicities. A CO2 greenhouse forcing would seem impossible.

 

http://www.whoi.edu/cms/files/marchal01epsl_42277.pdf


Atmospheric radiocarbon during the Younger Dryas: production, ventilation, or both?
Olivier Marchala; *a, Thomas F. Stocker a, Raimund Muscheler b a. Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute,


University of Bern, Sidlerstrasse 5, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland b. Department of Surface Waters, EAWAG, Uë berlandstrasse 133, P.O. Box 611, CH-8600 Du«bendorf, Switzerland

Received 16 August 2000; received in revised form 5 December 2000; accepted 13 December 2000

 

The second feature in the Cariaco basin 14C record not replicated by our model is the rapidity of the 14C atm (atmospheric) increase at the onset of the YD. Almost all available high-resolution 14C data for the AllerÖd/YD boundary show a rapid age decline (14C increase) from ~10.8^11.0 14C kyr BP to ~10.6 14C kyr BP (see [16] and references therein). This decline is, to our opinion, very important and it would be very valuable to be able to model it.

 

"rapidity of the 14C atmospheric increase at the onset of the Younger Dryas."


I suspect this rapid increase during the beginning of Younger Dryas of 14C indicates the solar magnetic field, being the forcing agent, switched to a lower energy level in what according to the model would be a collapse of the solar magnetic field. The field strength reversal would of course lead the atmospheric 14C increase by 20 to 60 years. A detectable sudden increase in the proxy would likely indicate an even faster, or more properly termed abrupt, change to lower energy by the forcing agent. Can the Mutual Inductive Coupling of the Sun's and Earth's field generators really produce rapid ocean temperature increases and decreases? This phenomenon requires a high temperature fluid mechanism connected to a large dominating volumetric heat capacity of a planetary scale that can respond to and transport quickly the sudden changes in the Earth's field generator's temperature.

 

GRAPH G

post-88603-0-27050700-1369192859.jpg

 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/solanki2004/solanki2004.html

 

Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years
Nature, Vol. 431, No. 7012, pp. 1084 - 1087, 28 October 2004.
S.K. Solanki1, I. G. Usoskin2, B. Kromer3, M. Schüssler1, and J. Beer4
1 Max-Planck-Institut für Sonnensystemforschung (formerly the Max-Planck- Institut für Aeronomie), 37191 Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany 2 Sodankylä Geophysical Observatory (Oulu unit), University of Oulu, 90014 Oulu, Finland
3 Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Institut für Umweltphysik, Neuenheimer Feld 229, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
4 Department of Surface Waters, EAWAG, 8600 Dübendorf, Switzerland

"According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode. Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades."


The researchers are limited by the current standard model to solar variability as the only possible cause. I think their close to the answer, even admitting a possible link between the unusual "rarity" of high sunspot numbers and "the unusual climate change during the twentieth century"


GRAPH H

post-88603-0-57917700-1369193276_thumb.png

 

Base graph courtesy of NASA


GRAPH H
This is not a coincidence; the current standard model of the solar system is missing an important piece of the planetary thermodynamic process involving solar magnetic forcing of the planets that possess magnetic fields. The solar magnetic

inductance of the Earth's core and the heating of the Earth's interior influence the surface temperature records that are shown in these graphs.

 

You have seen an explicit series of research that show solar magnetic coupling to Earth surface temperatures that have no explanation by way of the current standard model. You have seen the solar magnetic field strength represented in two separate proxies, C14 and 10Be, that are a match not only in timing but also in proportion to the climate history of the last 1100+ years. There is not a current model anywhere that can show a cause and effect of this period of Earth's climate history let alone one that includes the post Industrial warming currently being observed. From the Younger Dryas to the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age on to the current Modern Max the solar magnetic field flux has in timing and degree matched the Earth's surface temperature Flux history.


"We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode". This statement gives me the chills (no pun intended). Take another look at graph G, do any of the other high solar magnetic activity periods look like they lasted very long.

 

What currently worries me is the before mentioned NASA article; "the Sun’s magnetic field has weakened by more than 30 percent since the mid 90’s" and the 2005 article "Prof. Bryden and his colleagues reported in Nature that the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) seems to have weakened by about 30 percent in the last decade". The lead time for those two causative events have put us down the road almost 20 years so we could start seeing some effects any time, and I suspect the last few unusually cold winters may be the beginning of the new normal.



Edited by imatfaal
Adding in Abstract from subsequent post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

arc, you have to learn to write abstracts. I am interested in your topic, but have neither the time, nor inclination ot invest in reading your entire post without some prior evidence it would be worth it. That could be provided by a well written abstract. I hope you will take the time to create one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SORRY,

I just get in the zone and don't know when to quit. Pretend that the first few paragraphs are the abstract.smile.png

And it really is worth reading.

Edited by arc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Arc, but there is no way those paragraphs can be conisdered an abstract for the rest of the piece. Please write a proper abstract, otherwise you are talking to yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A 200 page thesis should have an abstract of a couple of pages, often shorter. Concise writing and abstract writing are skills worth learning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

O.K. here it is. Could a moderator please move this to the top of the thread if possible. Thank you, arc

 

Abstract



This hypothesis regards the current understanding of atmospheric variability. The best science available has been focused primarily on several different forcing agents. The most recent warming trend that began around 1850 +/- has been attributed to anthropological CO2 emissions. The longer record going back to the beginning of the Holocene is highly varied in temperature with ice core records showing both gradual and sudden temperature swings in both directions. Currently there does not seem to be a single model that can account for the warming that categorizes the beginning of the current inter-glacial, the rapid temperature reversals of the Younger Dryes, the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age and other historic climate phenomena that it can be applied to. Not to mention the controversial warming of the last century and a half.


There has been difficulty in securing a single forcing agent that can be linked to the variations seen in historic climate records. This has resulted in a complicated climate formula of solar iridescence, fresh water flows that shut down the thermohaline, Milankovitch cycles, volcanic eruptions and many other theoretical mechanisms to solve the current climate variation puzzle.


I believe the simplest solution is likely the most accurate. The most obvious straight forward solution with the least number complexities should be the most accurate at predicting the multiple observations seen in the climate record. This model proposes a thermal forcing agent derived from the strain energy of the Earth’s mantle as it is displaced by an outer core's thermal variability. This thesis will show in a practical manner a logical reexamination of previous research to provide a new perspective into this sometimes contentious subject. The thesis will also provide a new level of predictive resolution to historic climate variability.



 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you. I now feel encouraged to read at least some of your detail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you. I now feel encouraged to read at least some of your detail.

Your welcome, I've missed all of your encouragement from up in "Plate Tectonic Mechanism?" Where did you disappear to?

 

I originally posted this in the climate Science section in response to this thread: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/74977-reasons-not-to-worry-climate-change-debate/page-2 And more specifically this post below.

 

overtone

Posted 21 May 2013 - 12:20 PM

Quote

 

Correlation is not causation.

Correlation

plus demonstrated mechanism

plus dozens of generated hypotheses solidly supported

plus absence of contradictory findings

plus absence of alternative hypotheses

[unquote]

 

I believe I can challenge those statements in red, but not in that existing thread. I need to initially post a larger amount to make my case, but that would have been thread hijacking, correct? Everyone would not have appreciated me posting this amount of content on the thread. I assumed putting it within sight of that thread was a better idea. Well, it doesn't matter now I'm here in Speculations a long way from there. So if anyone who is or has posted up there in; "Reasons not to worry (Climate change debate)" this is a challenge to the absence of contradictory findings and the absence of alternative hypotheses.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Your welcome, I've missed all of your encouragement from up in "Plate Tectonic Mechanism?" Where did you disappear to?

 

I originally posted this in the climate Science section in response to this thread: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/74977-reasons-not-to-worry-climate-change-debate/page-2 And more specifically this post below.

 

overtone

Posted 21 May 2013 - 12:20 PM

Quote

Correlation

plus demonstrated mechanism

plus dozens of generated hypotheses solidly supported

plus absence of contradictory findings

plus absence of alternative hypotheses

[unquote]

 

I believe I can challenge those statements in red, but not in that existing thread. I need to initially post a larger amount to make my case, but that would have been thread hijacking, correct? Everyone would not have appreciated me posting this amount of content on the thread. I assumed putting it within sight of that thread was a better idea. Well, it doesn't matter now I'm here in Speculations a long way from there. So if anyone who is or has posted up there in; "Reasons not to worry (Climate change debate)" this is a challenge to the absence of contradictory findings and the absence of alternative hypotheses.

 

Arc...I read some of what you posted and I think you have listed some pretty cool data.

 

I am thinking that perhaps the position of the other planets specific to Earth and to the sun might have something to do with Earth's Magnetic Field drop offs and increases.

 

Earth has an iron rich core that is 4000 miles in diameter....that is larger than the planet Mercury and the core is closer to the Earth surface that the distance between NY and LA. The Outer core is Molten and the Inner core is Solid Metal...and this inner core spins independently from the rest of the planet.

 

The Inner core is comprised of metallic crystals which are aligned with Earths poles....how do we know this? Earthquake waves travel faster passing though the inner core North to South than passing East to West. This means that the metallic crystals aligned with the poles North to South allow such waves to travel with the grain much faster than against it.

 

The Solid...Inner Core and the Liquid Molten...Outer Core generate Earths magnetic field. Geoscientists at John Hopkins believe that the Eastern and Western halves of earths core take turns melting and growing thus this is why earths magnetic field is leaning now to the east. If the axis gets anchored in the growing half we get a Magnetic Field Reversals.

 

Now the as the core halves take turns growing and melting this will account for changes in the Magnetic Field strength, geometry and could be a cyclical long time period event that is responsible for the changes in the amount of Solar Radiation either allowed in or repelled.

 

This cyclical event could be just specific to the planet earths system or governed by an over all system of Solar/Planetary plus Earth based Gravity based effects.

 

Split Infinity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arc...I read some of what you posted and I think you have listed some pretty cool data.

 

I am thinking that perhaps the position of the other planets specific to Earth and to the sun might have something to do with Earth's Magnetic Field drop offs and increases.

 

Hay Split, If you look at the data you will see a constant correlation between the magnetic field strengths of the Sun and Earth.

 

http://www.ncdc.noaa...clisci10kb.html

Gerard C. Bond, a researcher at the Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory has suggested that the ~1,500 year cycle of ice-buildup in the North Atlantic is related to solar cycles; when the sun is at its most energetic, the Earth’s magnetic field is strengthened. . .

This is induction, one larger electromagnetic field inducing current in a smaller field. As the larger increases the smaller follows in kind. As the larger decreases the smaller does the same.

 

The Inner core is comprised of metallic crystals which are aligned with Earths poles....how do we know this? Earthquake waves travel faster passing though the inner core North to South than passing East to West. This means that the metallic crystals aligned with the poles North to South allow such waves to travel with the grain much faster than against it.

 

I posted this material in Mike Smiths thread; http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/74578-news-earths-core-hotter-than-thought/ , it is cutting edge.

 

http://www.geology.illinois.edu/people/xsong/Sites/papers/sun_song08_epsl.pdf

Geologists Xinlei Sun and Xiaodong Song at the University of Illinois have confirmed the discovery of Earth's inner, innermost core, and have created a three-dimensional model that describes the seismic anisotropy and texturing of iron crystals within the inner core. What they found was a distinct change in the inner core anisotropy, clearly marking the presence of an inner inner core with a diameter of about 1,180 kilometers, slightly less than half the diameter of the inner core. The layering of the core is interpreted as different texturing, or crystalline phase, of iron in the inner core, the researchers say.

 

"Our results suggest the outer inner core is composed of iron crystals of a single phase with different degrees of preferred alignment along Earth's spin axis," Sun said. "The inner inner core may be composed of a different phase of crystalline iron or have a different pattern of alignment."

 

post-88603-0-86953100-1370193534_thumb.jpg

Images and lower text Credit: Xinlei Sun and Xiaodong Song, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign/IRIS Consortium
Above left. Displays of the two-alignment model of inner core texturing, viewing from the North Pole (a) and along Meridians 40o and 220o (b), 100o and 280o ©, and 160o and 340o (d). The outer circle and the inner core circle (dotted) indicate the ICB (Inner core boundary) and the radius of 590 km, respectively. The dashed line in the western hemisphere of topmost inner core marks the region where anisotropy increases sharply with depth. (a) The circles and pluses indicate the fractions of polar alignment (f1) and equatorial alignment (f2) of the iron crystal's fast axis, respectively. The symbol size is proportional to the fraction. (b–d) The line segments indicate the fractions of polar and equatorial alignments.

The complexity of the Earth's field generator has increased greatly with this discovery. The past and current attempts to model this mechanism in spinning spheres of molten sodium were based on an over simplified concept, it may now be even more so. I wonder what Tesla would have made of this electromagnetic mechanism? arc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hay Split, If you look at the data you will see a constant correlation between the magnetic field strengths of the Sun and Earth.

 

http://www.ncdc.noaa...clisci10kb.html

Gerard C. Bond, a researcher at the Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory has suggested that the ~1,500 year cycle of ice-buildup in the North Atlantic is related to solar cycles; when the sun is at its most energetic, the Earth’s magnetic field is strengthened. . .

This is induction, one larger electromagnetic field inducing current in a smaller field. As the larger increases the smaller follows in kind. As the larger decreases the smaller does the same.

 

 

I posted this material in Mike Smiths thread; http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/74578-news-earths-core-hotter-than-thought/ , it is cutting edge.

 

http://www.geology.illinois.edu/people/xsong/Sites/papers/sun_song08_epsl.pdf

Geologists Xinlei Sun and Xiaodong Song at the University of Illinois have confirmed the discovery of Earth's inner, innermost core, and have created a three-dimensional model that describes the seismic anisotropy and texturing of iron crystals within the inner core. What they found was a distinct change in the inner core anisotropy, clearly marking the presence of an inner inner core with a diameter of about 1,180 kilometers, slightly less than half the diameter of the inner core. The layering of the core is interpreted as different texturing, or crystalline phase, of iron in the inner core, the researchers say.

 

"Our results suggest the outer inner core is composed of iron crystals of a single phase with different degrees of preferred alignment along Earth's spin axis," Sun said. "The inner inner core may be composed of a different phase of crystalline iron or have a different pattern of alignment."

 

attachicon.giffs6_fabric_clr.jpg

Images and lower text Credit: Xinlei Sun and Xiaodong Song, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign/IRIS Consortium
Above left. Displays of the two-alignment model of inner core texturing, viewing from the North Pole (a) and along Meridians 40o and 220o (b), 100o and 280o ©, and 160o and 340o (d). The outer circle and the inner core circle (dotted) indicate the ICB (Inner core boundary) and the radius of 590 km, respectively. The dashed line in the western hemisphere of topmost inner core marks the region where anisotropy increases sharply with depth. (a) The circles and pluses indicate the fractions of polar alignment (f1) and equatorial alignment (f2) of the iron crystal's fast axis, respectively. The symbol size is proportional to the fraction. (b–d) The line segments indicate the fractions of polar and equatorial alignments.

The complexity of the Earth's field generator has increased greatly with this discovery. The past and current attempts to model this mechanism in spinning spheres of molten sodium were based on an over simplified concept, it may now be even more so. I wonder what Tesla would have made of this electromagnetic mechanism? arc

 

What most people don't know is Earths magnetic poles are on the move...the North Pole is currently moving toward Russia at about 40 miles a year...here is link...http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/12/091224-north-pole-magnetic-russia-earth-core/

 

Now when the poles move to a great enough extent we are going to get Magnetic Pole Reversal which we know has happened many times before in Earths past.

 

As far as Earth Magnetic Field Strength....it is determined by the spinning of the Inner and Outer Cores and as the Earth's cores get cooler...the magnetic field will collapse and this will cause Solar Emissions and Cosmic Rays to fry the planet like a Hot Dog in a Microwave Oven.

 

This happened on Mars and resulted it the burning off of the Martian Oceans as well as killing off any life that might have lived on the surface of within those oceans. Mars had at one time a spinning core but unlike the Earth...which collided and absorbed a Mars sized planet Billions of years ago...which super heated the Earths core and gave it a longer life span....Mars' core cooled and stopped spinning.

 

Split Infinity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.