Magnetic North Pole Rapid Migration towards Siberia

[NACK]

Three images at the link https://imgur.com/a/reLzntN
1) Lastest NOAA data (2019) of location of magnetic north pole yrs 2000-2020
2) NOAA data for location of the magnetic north pole yrs 1590-2020
3) Earth's Magnetosphere

The World Magnetic Model is a joint product of the United States’ National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) and the United Kingdom’s Defence Geographic Centre (DGC).

An emergency meeting was held this year to revise the model a year early (normally done every five years) to prevent navigation errors.

The magnetic north pole migration has accelerated these past two decades in rhythm with the arctic sea ice melting.  The image of Earth's Magnetosphere illustrates the convergence of isogonic lines at the magnetic north and south poles.

My question is whether the rapid migration of the MNP could be effecting weather conditions in the arctic and hence sea ice loss.

 

[pietkuip]

No, there is no connection.

[FishOutofWater]

At this point we have little to no evidence that ice melting in Greenland and Antarctica have had any effect on the position of the magnetic north pole. I seriously doubt that short term  magnetic pole motions have had any significant effect on the weather or climate.

[NACK]

When I google why the MNP is moving, the general consensus is that its due to changes in the earth's molten core flows. I'm sure if that was the case the migration would be more random and erratic. But if you look at the GoogleEarth screenshot, after meandering around for 500 years it's suddenly moving in almost a direct straight line and perpendicular to the core flow.

And the timing with the MNP moving at an accelerated rate directly coinciding with the accelerated melting of the sea ice; it's extremely difficult for me to believe that it is only a coincidence...

[FishOutofWater]

Angular momentum effects related to ice melting in Greenland need to be calculated. I don't know if anyone has done that. Ah... yes, someone at NASA has...

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2805/scientists-id-three-causes-of-earths-spin-axis-drift/


The observed direction of polar motion

The observed direction of polar motion, shown as a light blue line, compared with the sum (pink line) of the influence of Greenland ice loss (blue), postglacial rebound (yellow) and deep mantle convection (red). The contribution of mantle convection is highly uncertain. Credit: NASA/ JPL-Caltech
› Larger view

A typical desk globe is designed to be a geometric sphere and to rotate smoothly when you spin it. Our actual planet is far less perfect -- in both shape and in rotation.

Earth is not a perfect sphere. When it rotates on its spin axis -- an imaginary line that passes through the North and South Poles -- it drifts and wobbles. These spin-axis movements are scientifically referred to as "polar motion." Measurements for the 20th century show that the spin axis drifted about 4 inches (10 centimeters) per year. Over the course of a century, that becomes more than 11 yards (10 meters).

Using observational and model-based data spanning the entire 20th century, NASA scientists have for the first time identified three broadly-categorized processes responsible for this drift -- contemporary mass loss primarily in Greenland, glacial rebound, and mantle convection.

"The traditional explanation is that one process, glacial rebound, is responsible for this motion of Earth's spin axis. But recently, many researchers have speculated that other processes could have potentially large effects on it as well," said first author Surendra Adhikari of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. "We assembled models for a suite of processes that are thought to be important for driving the motion of the spin axis. We identified not one but three sets of processes that are crucial -- and melting of the global cryosphere (especially Greenland) over the course of the 20th century is one of them."

In general, the redistribution of mass on and within Earth -- like changes to land, ice sheets, oceans and mantle flow -- affects the planet's rotation. As temperatures increased throughout the 20th century, Greenland's ice mass decreased. In fact, a total of about 7,500 gigatons -- the weight of more than 20 million Empire State Buildings -- of Greenland's ice melted into the ocean during this time period. This makes Greenland one of the top contributors of mass being transferred to the oceans, causing sea level to rise and, consequently, a drift in Earth's spin axis.

While ice melt is occurring in other places (like Antarctica), Greenland's location makes it a more significant contributor to polar motion.

"There is a geometrical effect that if you have a mass that is 45 degrees from the North Pole -- which Greenland is -- or from the South Pole (like Patagonian glaciers), it will have a bigger impact on shifting Earth's spin axis than a mass that is right near the Pole," said coauthor Eric Ivins, also of JPL.

Previous studies identified glacial rebound as the key contributor to long-term polar motion. And what is glacial rebound? During the last ice age, heavy glaciers depressed Earth's surface much like a mattress depresses when you sit on it. As that ice melts, or is removed, the land slowly rises back to its original position. In the new study, which relied heavily on a statistical analysis of such rebound, scientists figured out that glacial rebound is likely to be responsible for only about a third of the polar drift in the 20th century.

The authors argue that mantle convection makes up the final third. Mantle convection is responsible for the movement of tectonic plates on Earth's surface. It is basically the circulation of material in the mantle caused by heat from Earth's core. Ivins describes it as similar to a pot of soup placed on the stove. As the pot, or mantle, heats, the pieces of the soup begin to rise and fall, essentially forming a vertical circulation pattern -- just like the rocks moving through Earth's mantle.

With these three broad contributors identified, scientists can distinguish mass changes and polar motion caused by long-term Earth processes over which we have little control from those caused by climate change. They now know that if Greenland's ice loss accelerates, polar motion likely will, too.

[NACK]

N, there is no connection.

So we have two extremely extraordinary anomalous events occurring simultaneously in the exact same place on the planet and there is no connection between them?

[FishOutofWater]

NACK, we need to be careful before jumping to conclusions. Greenland ice melting is the largest factor in polar movement over the past 15 years, according to a NASA team. This NASA viewer is entertaining.

https://vesl.jpl.nasa.gov/sea-level/polar-motion/

[Pmt111500]

Looks like ever since Nixon has the magnetic pole moved towards Siberia faster than previously. I thought it was later in 2005 and the Indian Ocean Earthquake. Could it be the electrical energy consumption in parts of the world has dramatically shifted towards China and India and is it having a magnetic effect?
Not entirely impossible though, some quakes in Greenland have been attributed to melting ice, someone might want to compare the size of these with those generated by fracking for oil.

I'm not saying this or that and hope it won't reverse as my compass wouldn't point to the direction expected. Hmm. What happens to a compass during Northern Lights? Must remember to take it with me the next time going to see them.

[sidd]

Re: "Could it be the electrical energy consumption in parts of the world has dramatically shifted towards China and India and is it having a magnetic effect? "

No. Remember,return currents are equal to injected current, traverse the same path in reverse and cancel in magnetic field. So at best a dipole effect that falls off as 1/r^3 and is tiny to begin with.

Look elsewhere.

sidd

[NACK]

Additional data on the magnetosphere is being gathered by ESA's SWARM.
Reports are that the earth's magnetosphere is getting weaker at an accelerated pace.

A weaker magnetosphere allows more solar radiation to penetrate the surface.
This must certainly have an effect on sea ice.

[gerontocrat]

Additional data on the magnetosphere is being gathered by ESA's SWARM.
Reports are that the earth's magnetosphere is getting weaker at an accelerated pace.

A weaker magnetosphere allows more solar radiation to penetrate the surface.
This must certainly have an effect on sea ice.

If yes, not a lot, and by far the least concern from a weakened magnetosphere.

Of greater concern if the weakness continues to accelerate is the additional impact  from a solar flare on all our systems that depend on the electromagnetic spectrum.

Add to that increased disruption to satellite orbits from a major solar flare. Was there not a problem with the manned satellite observatory orbit decaying some years back?

And if the magnetosphere gets critically weak a lot of ooh nasty radiation will adversely affect an awful lot of life on earth (including us). Any reversal of polarity must include a transition period of weakness .

http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/education/reversals.html

"As a matter of geological record, the Earth's magnetic field has undergone numerous reversals of polarity. We can see this in the magnetic patterns found in volcanic rocks, especially those recovered from the ocean floors. In the last 10 million years, there have been, on average, 4 or 5 reversals per million years."

Is the Earth's magnetic field reversing now? How do we know?
Measurements have been made of the Earth's magnetic field more or less continuously since about 1840. Some measurements even go back to the 1500s, for example at Greenwich in London. If we look at the trend in the strength of the magnetic field over this time (for example the so-called 'dipole moment' shown in the graph below) we can see a downward trend. Indeed projecting this forward in time would suggest zero dipole moment in about 1500-1600 years time. This is one reason why some people believe the field may be in the early stages of a reversal. We also know from studies of the magnetisation of minerals in ancient clay pots that the Earth's magnetic field was approximately twice as strong in Roman times as it is now.

Even so, the current strength of the magnetic field is not particularly low in terms of the range of values it has had over the last 50,000 years and it is nearly 800,000 years since the last reversal. Also, bearing in mind what we said about 'excursions' above, and knowing what we do about the properties of mathematical models of the magnetic field, it is far from clear we can easily extrapolate to 1500 years hence.

__________________________________________________________
ps: The record of these reversals from the magnetic signature in the rocks was used as a major factor in proving plate tectonics (called then continental drift) back in the 1960's and 70's.

[NACK]

With all due respect, the graph is very general and doesn't capture the variations in different locations:

https://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/Swarm/Earth_s_magnetic_heartbeat

"It shows clearly that the field has weakened by about 3.5% at high latitudes over North America, while it has strengthened about 2% over Asia. The region where the field is at its weakest – the South Atlantic Anomaly – has moved steadily westward and weakened further by about 2%. "

...Referring to changes from 1999 to 2016.

[gerontocrat]

With all due respect, the graph is very general and doesn't capture the variations in different locations:

https://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/Swarm/Earth_s_magnetic_heartbeat

"It shows clearly that the field has weakened by about 3.5% at high latitudes over North America, while it has strengthened about 2% over Asia. The region where the field is at its weakest – the South Atlantic Anomaly – has moved steadily westward and weakened further by about 2%. "

...Referring to changes from 1999 to 2016.

I have no doubt the magnetosphere is changing and by varying degrees at various places. After, the data is measurable and verifiable. I am also sure that in conjunction with monitoring solar radiation especially solar flares, scientists are making adjustments to satellites and at times are also taking precautionary measures with ground-based electronic systems.

I just do not find any evidence that movements in the magnetic North Pole and changes to the strength of the magnetosphere are having any appreciable effect on sea ice.

[oren]

If anything, the magnetosphere might be affected by changes in Greenland and Antarctica, where the mass of the ice sheets is large enough to have global effects. The sea ice can't affect the magnetosphere, and is not affected by it either. Sea ice is just a 2-meter surface layer floating on top of an ocean, and does not even cause any mass redistribution.

[NACK]

With all due respect, the graph is very general and doesn't capture the variations in different locations:

https://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/Swarm/Earth_s_magnetic_heartbeat

"It shows clearly that the field has weakened by about 3.5% at high latitudes over North America, while it has strengthened about 2% over Asia. The region where the field is at its weakest – the South Atlantic Anomaly – has moved steadily westward and weakened further by about 2%. "

...Referring to changes from 1999 to 2016.

I have no doubt the magnetosphere is changing and by varying degrees at various places. After, the data is measurable and verifiable. I am also sure that in conjunction with monitoring solar radiation especially solar flares, scientists are making adjustments to satellites and at times are also taking precautionary measures with ground-based electronic systems.

I just do not find any evidence that movements in the magnetic North Pole and changes to the strength of the magnetosphere are having any appreciable effect on sea ice.

gerontocrat,

Apparently there is a very strong correlation between incoming solar radiation and sea ice:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0078323418300563

A steady decline in Arctic sea ice, especially during the melt seasons since 2000, has been well demonstrated (e.g. Comiso et al., 2017). An increase in solar radiation absorbed by the Arctic Ocean was also observed by satellite instruments during the same period (NASA, 2014). The partitioning of solar radiation in an ice-covered sea is a central issue of the energy budget of the Arctic Ocean and the mass balance of Arctic sea ice (Lei et al., 2016, Wang et al., 2014, Wang et al., 2016). The solar energy absorbed by the sea ice cover largely determines the rate of ice melting (Hudson et al., 2013), while the backscattering part provides heats to the atmosphere (Perovich, 2005). Energy penetrating through the sea ice cover warms up the ocean beneath the ice, which is a primary source of ocean heat (Katlein et al., 2015). The apparent optical properties (AOPs) – albedo (reflectance) and transmittance – determine the partitioning of solar radiation into backscattering, absorption and transmittance in the Arctic sea ice (Perovich, 1996).

[SteveMDFP]

Apparently there is a very strong correlation between incoming solar radiation and sea ice:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0078323418300563

Well, yes, but 99+% of the "solar radiation" here is in or near the visible spectrum.
The earth's magnetic field only deflects charged particles.  It doesn't affect visible light, infrared, UV, etc.  Remove the earth's magnetic field, and maybe the ozone layer gets affected, earth satellites go wonky, but those particles still won't make it through the atmosphere.

[oren]

Are there connections between the Earth's magnetic field and climate?

Abstract
Understanding climate change is an active topic of research. Much of the observed increase in global surface temperature over the past 150 years occurred prior to the 1940s and after the 1980s. The main causes invoked are solar variability, changes in atmospheric greenhouse gas content or sulfur due to natural or anthropogenic action, or internal variability of the coupled ocean–atmosphere system. Magnetism has seldom been invoked, and evidence for connections between climate and magnetic field variations have received little attention. We review evidence for correlations which could suggest such (causal or non-causal) connections at various time scales (recent secular variation ∼ 10–100 yr, historical and archeomagnetic change ∼ 100–5000 yr, and excursions and reversals ∼ 103–106 yr), and attempt to suggest mechanisms. Evidence for correlations, which invoke Milankovic forcing in the core, either directly or through changes in ice distribution and moments of inertia of the Earth, is still tenuous. Correlation between decadal changes in amplitude of geomagnetic variations of external origin, solar irradiance and global temperature is stronger. It suggests that solar irradiance could have been a major forcing function of climate until the mid-1980s, when “anomalous” warming becomes apparent. The most intriguing feature may be the recently proposed archeomagnetic jerks, i.e. fairly abrupt (∼ 100 yr long) geomagnetic field variations found at irregular intervals over the past few millennia, using the archeological record from Europe to the Middle East. These seem to correlate with significant climatic events in the eastern North Atlantic region. A proposed mechanism involves variations in the geometry of the geomagnetic field (f.i. tilt of the dipole to lower latitudes), resulting in enhanced cosmic-ray induced nucleation of clouds. No forcing factor, be it changes in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere or changes in cosmic ray flux modulated by solar activity and geomagnetism, or possibly other factors, can at present be neglected or shown to be the overwhelming single driver of climate change in past centuries. Intensive data acquisition is required to further probe indications that the Earth's and Sun's magnetic fields may have significant bearing on climate change at certain time scales.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222817231_Are_there_connections_between_the_Earth's_magnetic_field_and_climate

[gerontocrat]

Everything is connected. The connections may be strong or weak, direct or indirect. So there is a connection of some sort between the magnetosphere and climate. There is a lot of short, medium and long-term data on changes in the magnetosphere including the many pole reversals in the last 10 million years. A strong connection with climate change in recent history, the holocene and before would surely have been apparent and within the mainstream of climate science by now.

It is not. Vincent Courtillot has his name quoted on a lot of papers on this subject, in addition to the one quoted by Oren.... Read below.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Courtillot

Vincent E. Courtillot (born 6 March 1948) is an emeritus French geophysicist and global warming denier. He is best known for his book "La Vie en catastrophes" (Paris, Fayard, 1995), translated into English as "Evolutionary catastrophes" (1999).

Magnetic field and climate
He is currently at the centre of scientific controversy regarding the publication of one of his papers in the journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters (EPSL) entitled “Are there connections between the Earth's magnetic field and climate?” by V. Courtillot, Y. Gallet, J.-L. Le Mouël, F. Fluteau, A. Genevey (2007) EPSL 253, 328. There have been articles in Le Monde on 15 January 2008,[5] and in Science on 11 January 2008 [6] concerning the debate over this paper.

He is usually considered[7] as a global warming skeptic, often associated with Claude Allègre. Vincent Courtillot asserted that his collaboration with oil companies Total and Schlumberger on CO2 sequestration (CCS)[8][9] has no influence on his research and results.

Research
Courtillot favors the hypothesis that major mass extinctions are caused by massive episodes of vulcanism: that the Permian-Triassic (P/T) extinction that ended the Paleozoic Era was caused by the Siberian Traps eruption, and the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event that ended the Mesozoic Era was caused by the Deccan Traps vulcanism in India. His position is generally in opposition to the hypothesis famously championed by Luis Alvarez and Walter Alvarez, that the K/T extinction that saw the end of the dinosaurs was primarily due to the asteroid impact at Chicxulub on the Yucatan Peninsula. However, Courtillot does not dispute the scientifically-determined facts of the Chicxulub impact; rather, he argues that the totality of the available evidence supports a thesis that mass extinctions are generally caused by volcanic action.

There is no doubt that Courtillot has a deserved high reputation in the field of terrestrial vulcanism, but when he shifts to make pronouncements on the relationship between solar radiation, the magnetosphere and major changes to climate then it's time I went for a beer.

[oren]

Oops. My bad.

[NACK]

https://www.researchgate.net/publication

Earth’s Diminishing Magnetic Dipole Moment is Driving Global Carbon Dioxide Levels and Global Warming 
David A. E. Vares
Michael Persinger

... This is shorter than diffusion (>10000 years) by orders of magnitude. Continuing this consideration: on a hypothetical twin earth lacking a Geo-MF, the heat-and momentumfluxes into the deep sea would be 2–3% higher, shedding new light on reported coherences between global temperature and geomagnetic secular variations (Gallet et al. 2005, Courtillot et al. 2007). A detailed investigation of a possible influence of MHD effects by geomagnetism on the oceanic heat budget will be reserved to studies in progress, implementing suitable extensions in an established oceanic circulation model. ...
... S3 and S4). These findings also indicate a possible connection between climate and the state of the geomagnetic field, which has already been suggested in another context (Courtillot et al., 2007). He suggests an altered penetration of cosmic-rays in the atmosphere by changes of the GEO-MF: cosmic-rays are known to support the nucleation of clouds. ...

[Tor Bejnar]

...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Courtillot

Vincent E. Courtillot (born 6 March 1948) is an emeritus French geophysicist and global warming denier.
…
He is usually considered[7] as a global warming skeptic,
…
Courtillot favors the hypothesis that major mass extinctions are caused by massive episodes of vulcanism: … the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event that ended the Mesozoic Era was caused by the Deccan Traps vulcanism in India. His position is generally in opposition to the hypothesis famously championed by Luis Alvarez and Walter Alvarez, that the K/T [now called K/Pg] extinction that saw the end of the dinosaurs was primarily due to the asteroid impact at Chicxulub on the Yucatan Peninsula.
...

There is no doubt that Courtillot has a deserved high reputation in the field of terrestrial vulcanism, but when he shifts to make pronouncements on the relationship between solar radiation, the magnetosphere and major changes to climate then it's time I went for a beer.

For the record (sorry for the further OT), but to support Courtillot's terrestrial vulcanism ideas [only!], from A bad day at the end of the Cretaceous in Earth-Pages comes an article that concludes:

… Previously [to the paper and subsequent The New Yorker magazine article being discussed in the article], palaeontologists had found no dinosaur remains less than 3 m below the K-Pg boundary layer anywhere on Earth, prompting the suggestion that they had become extinct before the near-instantaneous effects of Chicxulub, and were perhaps victims of the general effects of the Deccan Trap volcanism. If verified in later peer-reviewed publications, DePalma et al’s work would help resolve the gradual vs sudden hypotheses for the end-Cretaceous mass extinction.

[mitch]

I once saw a seminar by Courtillot where he attempted to construct a global temperature time series using 5 temperature records from Oregon.  Unfortunately he has started from the conclusion--no global warming--and then searches for evidence that fits that conclusion.

His biases are too strong for him to be a trustworthy source on climate change.

[Darvince]

I can tell there is lots of confusion here, and I am also certain I cannot clear it all up by myself, but I can at least clear these things up:

1) In science, radiation refers to everything in the electromagnetic spectrum, which includes radio waves, microwaves, infrared light, visible light, UV light, X-rays, and gamma rays. All of these are fundamentally made of the same thing, that is, photons, with different energies, with energies increasing as you go down my list. The "radiation" you probably think of is gamma rays from radioactive materials. The vast majority of radiation from the Sun is visible light, but it emits small amounts of every kind of radiation as far as I am aware.

2) It is extremely unlikely for sea ice to cause anything with the magnetic field for many reasons, but the most intuitive one to me is the vast scale difference between the volume of sea ice and the volume of the Earth's innards (mantle, outer and inner core). The volume of sea ice by magnitude (power of 10) is about 10^13 cubic meters while the volume of the Earth's innards is about 10^21 cubic meters. Sea ice would have to be having an effect ONE HUNDRED MILLION times its size to be the cause for the recent changes in the magnetic field.

[Steven]

Earth’s Diminishing Magnetic Dipole Moment is Driving Global Carbon Dioxide Levels and Global Warming 
David A. E. Vares
Michael Persinger

That paper is rubbish.  It is full of incorrect and absurd statements such as: "...we propose that the increased atmospheric CO2 does not cause global warming but rather both have been caused by the consequences of the diminished magnetic field".

Also, there is a huge math error in that paper: their calculation of energy is off by 12 orders of magnitude. See the discussion and comments in this blog post.

[NACK]

Apparently there is a very strong correlation between incoming solar radiation and sea ice:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0078323418300563

Well, yes, but 99+% of the "solar radiation" here is in or near the visible spectrum.
The earth's magnetic field only deflects charged particles.  It doesn't affect visible light, infrared, UV, etc.  Remove the earth's magnetic field, and maybe the ozone layer gets affected, earth satellites go wonky, but those particles still won't make it through the atmosphere.

Just ran across this very strong correlation between cosmic ray flux and cloud cover...

"In 1995, Henrik Svensmark discovered a startling connection between the cosmic ray flux from space and cloud cover. He found that when the sun is more active--more sunspots, a stronger magnetic field, larger auroras, stronger solar winds, etc.--fewer cosmic rays strike the earth and cloud cover is reduced, resulting in warmer temperatures. Figure 2 shows the relationship he found between low-level cloud amount derived from satellite data from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project and cosmic ray counts from Climax, Colorado.


... for the 22-year period from 1983 to 2005, the average amount of low-level cloud follows the flux of cosmic rays very closely. In fact, Svensmark claims that the correlation coefficient is 0.92, a very high correlation for this type of data. In addition, when looking at various longer periods of record using proxy data for these two variables, he also found good correlations and similar trends. In particular, he suggested that during the Little Ice Age when the sun was inactive, cosmic ray flux from space was high, cloud amount was greater, and global temperatures were cooler. As the sun became more active after 1750, cosmic ray flux decreased, cloud amount decreased, and global temperatures warmed. "

Current Climate:
1) Increase in CO2
2) Increase in global temperature
3) Rapid melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet

Elephants in the room that are difficult to ignore:

4) Accelerated decrease in magnetosphere (increase in cosmic ray influx)
5) Decrease in Ozone Layer (affected by weakening magnetosphere)
6) Increase in volcanic activity

[Midnightsun]

That's some pretty great hopium Nack. Let's hope the cooling factors save us from cooking. (I'm both sarcastic and serious, I really hope they do but I think hope is futile at the same time).

Has anyone done models with the cooling factors added to the scenarios?

[gerontocrat]

Just ran across this very strong correlation between cosmic ray flux and cloud cover...

"In 1995, Henrik Svensmark discovered a startling connection between the cosmic ray flux from space and cloud cover. He found that when the sun is more active--more sunspots, a stronger magnetic field, larger auroras, stronger solar winds, etc.--fewer cosmic rays strike the earth and cloud cover is reduced, resulting in warmer temperatures. Figure 2 shows the relationship he found between low-level cloud amount derived from satellite data from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project and cosmic ray counts from Climax, Colorado.

skepticalscience.com is not impressed...

https://skepticalscience.com/analysis_of_svensmark_reference_list.html

NEVEN !!!!!

We have an intruder....

(wattsupwiththat) /2018/03/16/an-interview-with-henrik-svensmark-cosmic-rays-clouds-and-climate/
An interview with Henrik Svensmark: cosmic rays, clouds and climate
Anthony Watts / March 16, 2018
Prof Henrik Svensmark & Jacob Svensmark discuss the connection between cosmic rays, clouds and climate with the GWPF’s Benny Peiser and Jonny Bairstow from Energy Live News after his recent presentation in London. (Presentation in the House of Lords, London, 13 March 2018 - Lord Monkton?

[binntho]

Just ran across this very strong correlation between cosmic ray flux and cloud cover...

Well, there may be a weak causality here (i.e. cosmic rays have been shown to be able to cause cloud formation) but current warming can in no measure be correlated with changes in cloud cover. Changes in cloud cover of a magnitude sufficient to change the climate have not been observed at all in the last 50 years during which time temperature has risen sharply.

Also this contra-indication (i.e. result that shows exactly the opposite, from here):

It has been determined in this assessment that the recent extended quiet period (QP) between solar cycles 23–24 has led to a record high level of GCRs, which in turn has been accompanied by a record low level of lower troposphere global cloudiness.

Current Climate:
1) Increase in CO2
2) Increase in global temperature
3) Rapid melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet

Elephants in the room that are difficult to ignore:

4) Accelerated decrease in magnetosphere (increase in cosmic ray influx)
5) Decrease in Ozone Layer (affected by weakening magnetosphere)
6) Increase in volcanic activity

These are not "elephants". There is no sufficient causality between the magnetosphere and climate. The Ozone layer decreased and is now increasing again, without any correlation with climate. And there has been no increase in volcanic activity.

[jdallen]

 Can we please stop this nonsense and close the thread?


 

[Neven]

Yes, we can.