New paper in GRL confirms link between sun and clouds on global scale

[Saul]

Xnn,

The correlation between GCR intensity and strength and planetary cloud cover appears to breaks down if solar wind bursts remove the ions via the process electroscavenging.

GCR increases and decreases due to the strength of the solar heliosphere. The solar wind bursts are produced by coronal holes that have formed at low latitudes on the solar surface such that the wind bursts that they produces strike the earth. The solar wind bursts create a space charge in the ionosphere which removes cloud forming ions. Less clouds warmer planet.

(The solar wind bursts cause the planetary index (blue line in the graph) in this link to move up.)

http://www.solen.info/solar/

Normally to coronal holes form at the solar poles at the end of the solar cycle.

Now as noted above the solar heliosphere is the weakest in 170 years. The continues, however, to coronal holes at low latitudes on the solar surface.

The coronal holes strip of the magnetic field from the sun and are hence getting weaker.

There is something else going on in terms of the mechanism. There is a noticeable difference from perihelion and aphelion. Perihelion occurs in January.


This new paper by Svensmark proves the GCR mechanism.


http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL038429.shtml

Cosmic ray decreases affect atmospheric aerosols and clouds by Henrik Svensmark et al.

Close passages of coronal mass ejections from the sun are signaled at the Earth's surface by Forbush decreases in cosmic ray counts. We find that low clouds contain less liquid water following Forbush decreases, and for the most influential events the liquid water in the oceanic atmosphere can diminish by as much as 7%. Cloud water content as gauged by the Special Sensor Microwave/Imager (SSM/I) reaches a minimum ≈7 days after the Forbush minimum in cosmic rays, and so does the fraction of low clouds seen by the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) and in the International Satellite Cloud Climate Project (ISCCP). Parallel observations by the aerosol robotic network AERONET reveal falls in the relative abundance of fine aerosol particles which, in normal circumstances, could have evolved into cloud condensation nuclei. Thus a link between the sun, cosmic rays, aerosols, and liquid-water clouds appears to exist on a global scale.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090801095810.htm

 

[Xnn]

Saul;

I don't think one can logically defend an excuse that applies for just the last 20 years.
It's funny to me that these guys think they are on to something while they admit
that it doesn't apply to the last 2 decades. Actually, it is getting to be hilarious.

Also, your link only goes back to July 2009.
It does not support any statements regarding the last 170 years.

You're more of an expert on this stuff than I am.
So, how much cooling are these guys predicting?

 

[Xnn]

Here's a paper that refutes any link between GCR and recent climate change.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL023621.shtml

New estimates of the solar cycle length are calculated from an up-to-date monthly sunspot record using a novel but mathematically rigorous method involving multiple regression, Fourier approximation, and analytical expressions for the first derivative based on calculus techniques. The sensitivity of the estimates to smoothing are examined and the analysis is used to identify possible systematic changes in the sun. The solar cycle length analysis indicates a pronounced change in the sun around 1900, before which the estimates fluctuate strongly and after which the estimates show little variability. There have been speculations about an association between the solar cycle length and Earth's climate, however, the solar cycle length analysis does not follow Earth's global mean surface temperature. A further comparison with the monthly sunspot number, cosmic galactic rays and 10.7 cm absolute radio flux since 1950 gives no indication of a systematic trend in the level of solar activity that can explain the most recent global warming.

 

[Xnn]

And here's a paper that refutes a cosmic ray link to the most recent warming:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL023621.shtml

A decrease in the globally averaged low level cloud cover, deduced from the ISCCP infra red data, as the cosmic ray intensity decreased during the solar cycle 22 was observed by two groups. The groups went on to hypothesise that the decrease in ionization due to cosmic rays causes the decrease in cloud cover, thereby explaining a large part of the presently 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.

Saul;

I think we are starting cycle 24.
That would make cycle 22 a while ago; correct?
I wonder what was found for cycle 23.

 

[Xnn]

Here's another peer reviewed paper that concludes that correlation is not causation
when discussing Low Cloud Cover (LCC) and Cosmic Rays (CR).

Fancy that!

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0906/0906.3959v2.pdf

The simultaneous reduction of LCC and of CR intensity is not evidence
for a causal relationship between these two phenomena. They correlate due
to the presence of a common driving force:changes in solar activity.

 

[Xnn]

And then there is this... Less than 14% of recent warming from solar activity changes.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0901/0901.0515v1.pdf

The variation with time from 1956-2002 of the globally averaged rate of ionization produced
by cosmic rays in the atmosphere is deduced and shown to have a cyclic component
of period roughly twice the 11 year solar cycle period. Long term variations in the global
average surface temperature as a function of time since 1956 are found to have a similar
cyclic component. The cyclic variations are also observed in the solar irradiance and in
the mean daily sun spot number. 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.

 

[Saul]

Here's a paper that refutes any link between GCR and recent climate change.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL023621.shtml

Xnn,
The paper you quote looks at solar cycle length and finds there is a period when there is no correlation. The mechanism we are discussing however is solar wind bursts that remove cloud forming ions.

Why does the author discuss solar length. What difference does it make if the length of solar cycle varies? You quote a paper that has nothing to do with solar wind bursts.

This is not religious studies where one can appeal to some sacred book that has a higher status or democratic where if 10 people agree with your statement and only 9 agree with what my statement, you win.

See the paper linked to below that specifically notes the Earth is ringing! for cycle 24.

What is the point of a scientific forum if we do not discuss the topic scientifically. You must accept the mechanism I proposing that explains the hump warming followed by slight cooling. The shape of the warming is relevant to the discussion. That observation is a fact. Start a separate thread if you would like to explain the warming trend with AWG.

I have explained the mechanism. Solar wind bursts create a space charge that removes cloud forming ions.

If there are solar wind bursts it does not matter if GCR is high and is creating a large number of ions as the solar wind bursts will remove the ions.

In addition GCR has a greater effect on the latitude 40 Deg to 60 Deg, whereas the solar wind bursts (electroscavenging) affect lower tropical latitudes in addition to higher latitudes.http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..969G.pdf

Once again about global warming and solar activity K. Georgieva, C. Bianchi, and B. Kirov

We show that the index commonly used for quantifying long-term changes in solar activity, the sunspot number, accounts for only one part of solar activity and using this index leads to the underestimation of the role of solar activity in the global warming in the recent decades. A more suitable index is the geomagnetic activity which reflects all solar activity, and it is highly correlated to global temperature variations in the whole period for which we have data.

In Figure 6 the long-term variations in global temperature are compared to the long-term variations in geomagnetic activity as expressed by the ak-index (Nevanlinna and Kataja 2003). The correlation between the two quantities is 0.85 with p<0.01 for the whole period studied.It could therefore be concluded that both the decreasing correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity, and the deviation of the global temperature long-term trend from solar activity as expressed by sunspot index are due to the increased number of high-speed streams of solar wind on the declining phase and in the minimum of sunspot cycle in the last decades.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JA014342.shtml

Cycle 24, Cycle 24, Cycle 24 Why is the Earth Ringing. What do the words "ringing" mean in this context?

If the Sun is so quiet, why is the Earth ringing? A comparison of two solar minimum intervals.

Observations from the recent Whole Heliosphere Interval (WHI) solar minimum campaign are compared to last cycle's Whole Sun Month (WSM) to demonstrate that sunspot numbers, while providing a good measure of solar activity, do not provide sufficient information to gauge solar and heliospheric magnetic complexity and its effect at the Earth. The present solar minimum is exceptionally quiet, with sunspot numbers at their lowest in 75 years and solar wind magnetic field strength lower than ever observed. Despite, or perhaps because of, a global weakness in the heliospheric magnetic field, large near-equatorial coronal holes lingered even as the sunspots disappeared. Consequently, for the months surrounding the WHI campaign, strong, long, and recurring high-speed streams in the solar wind intercepted the Earth in contrast to the weaker and more sporadic streams that occurred around the time of last cycle's WSM campaign.

Comments:
We are discussing a physical process. There is a cycle of glacial/interglacial periods. Interglacial periods are very short (around 12 kyrs) Glacial periods are long, around 100 kyr. There is obviously some massive forcing function that forces the glacial period. Insolation at the so called 60 Degree North is exactly the same as the coldest period of the last glacial period.

Insolation is not driving the glacial/interglacial cycle. This massive forcing function that I am alluding to is forcing the planet's temperature. I look at the paleoclimatic data, I have specific knowledge about system modeling and stability. It is obvious there is some external semi periodic function that is forcing the planet's temperature.

The sun is in a very unusual state. What do we know about the range of past solar unusual events? What do we know about other stars that are the same as our sun?

 

[Skyhunter]

Saul,

Why don't you read the papers Xnn linked, then you might be able to reply without ad hominem. You accuse others of not understanding and then demonstrate that you do not understand the paper you are commenting on.

The correlation to GCR and low cloud cover proves nothing. The reason that the solar cycle is being discussed is because GCR also correlates to the solar cycle. If ionization of particles was significant for cloud formation, there should also be a correlation with mid and high level clouds. What is found that mid level clouds decline while low clouds increase. Therefore the amount of clouds forming does not increase, only the level of the clouds.

Applying Occam's razor the authors determined that LCC correlation is due to cooler temperatures, due to lower solar irradiance. In other words the height of the clouds is what changes, not the amount, and that is more a function of convection than ionization.

Accusing others of religious fervor, while holding onto your fringe belief with vigorous zeal is quite telling.

 

[Saul]

Science is the analysis of observation data to validate or invalidate hypotheses.

There is a significant solar event underway. How has the solar magnetic cycle changed?

Are there any unexplained climatic events or changes that correlate with the recent solar changes? Note the mechanism has solar wind bursts removing the ions that are hypothesized to increase planetary cloud cover, therefore the planet will not cool (planetary clouds increased due to high levels of GCR) until the the solar wind bursts abate and then stop.

As shown in the solar links below, the solar wind bursts are starting to abate. GCR is 19% higher than any period in the last 40 years.

Ocean heat content is starting to trend down. Why?

edit: removed link

This set of links shows the progress of the solar magnetic cycle.

The sun is spotless for this day in 2004 however there is significant magnetic activity.

edit: removed links
The solar magnetic cycle has not restarted. There continues to be coronal holes in low latitude locations on the sun, however, the affect on the geomagnetic field is less and less as the coronal holes are stripping of the sun's magnetic flux and the solar magnetic cycle has not restarted. (See coronal hole CH382.)

Today. (See coronal hole CH382.)

edit:deleted links

 

[Skyhunter]

Insolation at the so called 60 Degree North is exactly the same as the coldest period of the last glacial period.

No it isn't. 20,000 years ago was the coldest part of the last glacial period and insolation at 65N was ~20Wm² less than it is today.

 

[Saul]

No it isn't. 20,000 years ago was the coldest part of the last glacial period and insolation at 65N was ~20Wm² less than it is today.

Insolation was not 20 W/m^2 less at 65N 20,000 years in the summer. (Note the summer insolation at 65N is supposedly important in Milankovitch's theory.) 20,000 years ago was the start of the current interglacial. 20,000 years ago perihelion (earth's closest approach to the sun) occurred in June. Therefore summers at 65N 20,000 years ago were significantly warmer (due to insolation) than they are today. (Planet was still cold 20,000 years ago as the massive ice sheets were starting to melt. Have you heard about the glacial/interglacial cycle?)

Currently the Earth is farthest from the sun in June and closest to the sun in January. Therefore summers at 65N are colder due to insolation than they were 20,000 years ago. The insolation during summers at 65N is the same today as it was during the coldest part of the last glacial period.

Now the question all curious scientific minds want to ask is why does the planet get colder and colder, then at the coldest point in the glacial cycle the ice sheets melt for a short interglacial period and then suddenly there is abrupt cooling. What is the 100 kyr problem? (See link at end of this comment.)

Do you know anything about Milankovitch's flawed theory? Do please explain the mechanism. I am curious about your thoughts and knowledge of obvious flaws in Milankovitch's theory. Great theory if one ignores the paradoxes.

http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/milankovitchqsr2004.pdf

“Quantitative estimate of the Milankovitch-forced contribution to observed Quaternary climate change” by Carl Wunsch

“A number of records commonly described as showing control of climate change by Milankovitch insolation forcing are re-examined. The fraction of the record variance attributable to orbital changes never exceeds 20%. In no case, including a tuned core, do these forcing bands explain the overall behavior of the records. At zero order, all records are consistent with stochastic models of varying complexity with a small superimposed Milankovitch response, mainly in the obliquity band. Evidence cited to support the hypothesis that the 100 Ka glacial/interglacial cycles are controlled by the quasi-periodic insolation forcing is likely indistinguishable from chance, given the small sample size and near-integer ratios of 100 Ka to the precessional periods. At the least, the stochastic background‘‘noise’’ is likely to be of importance.”

Evidence that Milankovitch forcing ‘‘controls’’ the records, in particular the 100 ka glacial/interglacial, is very thin and some what implausible, given that most of the high frequency variability lies elsewhere.

www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/FACULTY/POPP/Lecture14.pp[/URL][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles[/url][QUOTE]100,000-year problem

[B]The 100,000-year problem[/B] is that the eccentricity variations have a significantly smaller impact on solar forcing than precession or obliquity and hence might be expected to produce the weakest effects. However, observations show that during the last 1 million years, the strongest climate signal is the 100,000-year cycle. In addition, despite the relatively large 100,000-year cycle, some have argued that the length of the climate record is insufficient to establish a statistically significant relationship between climate and eccentricity variations.[6] Some models can however reproduce the 100,000 year cycles as a result of non-linear interactions between small changes in the Earth's orbit and internal oscillations of the climate system.[7][8][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE][B]The 400,000-year problem[/B] is that the eccentricity variations have a strong 400,000-year cycle. That cycle is only clearly present in climate records older than the last million years. If the 100 ka variations are having such a strong effect, the 400 ka variations might also be expected to be apparent. This is also known as the stage 11 problem, after the interglacial in marine isotopic stage 11 which would be unexpected if the 400,000-year cycle has an impact on climate. The relative absence of this periodicity in the marine isotopic record may be due, at least in part, to the response times of the climate system components involved — in particular, the carbon cycle.[/QUOTE][QUOTE][B]The stage 5 problem[/B] refers to the timing of the penultimate interglacial (in marine isotopic stage 5) which appears to have begun 10 thousand years in advance of the solar forcing hypothesized to have been causing it. [B]This is also referred to as the causality problem.[/B] Effect exceeds cause 420,000 years of ice core data from Vostok, Antarctica research station.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]The effects of these variations are primarily believed to be due to variations in the intensity of solar radiation upon various parts of the globe. Observations show climate behaviour is much more intense than the calculated variations. Various internal characteristics of climate systems are believed to be sensitive to the insolation changes, causing amplification (positive feedback) and damping responses (negative feedback).

[B]The unsplit peak problem[/B] The unsplit peak problem refers to the fact that eccentricity has cleanly resolved variations at both the 95 and 125 ka periods. A sufficiently long, well-dated record of climate change should be able to resolve both frequencies [5], but some researchers interpret climate records of the last million years as showing only a single spectral peak at 100 ka periodicity. It is debatable whether the quality of existing data ought to be sufficient to resolve both frequencies over the last million years.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE][B] The transition problem[/B]

[B]The transition problem[/B] refers to the change in the frequency of climate variations 1 million years ago. From 1-3 million years, climate had a dominant mode matching the 41 ka cycle in obliquity. After 1 million years ago, this changed to a 100 ka variation matching eccentricity. No reason for this change has been established.[/QUOTE]

 

[Skyhunter]

OK, Making eyeball guesstimates is not very accurate so let me get more exact numbers.

http://www.imcce.fr/Equipes/ASD/insola/earth/online/index.php

65N summer insolation peaked 17,000 years ago.

http://www.imcce.fr/tmp/insola/insolaoutKWaaCo

The coldest point of the last glaciation was ~25,000 years ago and 65N 360L was about -6Wm² less than the present.

But there are other factors besides orbital forcings and NH summer insolation at any given period. I was not arguing that 65N insolation was the only forcing involved, I was simply pointing out your error. Since your argument was based on bad information, your conclusion is suspect.

 

[Xnn]

Xnn,
This is not religious studies where one can appeal to some sacred book that has a higher status or democratic where if 10 people agree with your statement and only 9 agree with what my statement, you win.

Saul;

The problem is that there are a number of quacks around when it comes to science.
The way to avoid being mislead, is to refer to reputable sources and journals that employ the peer review process. It not, then this may just as well be a political or religious belief forum.

I agree with you that the Sun is in an exceptional period which may continue. There has been very few sunspots for the last 2 years. It's about as big a lull and what occurred in 1910 to 1913. This means the solar forcing for the climate is about as low as it was way back then. However, last I checked, global surface and land temps are both near record highs. It's far warmer now than it was back then and I think we both know why.

Here's a link to the latest National Climate Data Center summary:

*The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for August 2009 was 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 15.6°C (60.1°F). This is the second warmest such value on record, behind 1998. August 2009 was the 31st consecutive August with an average global surface temperature above the 20th century average. The last August with global temperatures below the 20th century average occurred in 1978.
*The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for June-August 2009 was the third warmest on record for the season, 0.59°C (1.06°F) above the 20th century average of 15.6°C (60.1°F).
*The worldwide ocean surface temperature for August 2009 was the warmest on record for August, 0.57°C (1.03°F) above the 20th century average of 16.4°C (61.4°F).
*The seasonal (June-August 2009) worldwide ocean surface temperature was also the warmest on record, 0.58°C (1.04°F) above the 20th century average of 16.4°C (61.5°F).
*In the Southern Hemisphere, both the August 2009 average temperature for land areas, and the Hemisphere as a whole (land and ocean surface combined), represented the warmest August on record.

Now, this does not mean we can not discuss the influence of the Sun on the climate. However, I'm not interested in being mislead by outrageous over hyped claims.

 

[Evo]

Science is the analysis of observation data to validate or invalidate hypotheses.

There is a significant solar event underway. How has the solar magnetic cycle changed?

Are there any unexplained climatic events or changes that correlate with the recent solar changes? Note the mechanism has solar wind bursts removing the ions that are hypothesized to increase planetary cloud cover, therefore the planet will not cool (planetary clouds increased due to high levels of GCR) until the the solar wind bursts abate and then stop.

As shown in the solar links below, the solar wind bursts are starting to abate. GCR is 19% higher than any period in the last 40 years.

Ocean heat content is starting to trend down. Why?

edit: removed link

This set of links shows the progress of the solar magnetic cycle.

The sun is spotless for this day in 2004 however there is significant magnetic activity.

edit: removed links
The solar magnetic cycle has not restarted. There continues to be coronal holes in low latitude locations on the sun, however, the affect on the geomagnetic field is less and less as the coronal holes are stripping of the sun's magnetic flux and the solar magnetic cycle has not restarted. (See coronal hole CH382.)

Today. (See coronal hole CH382.)

edit:deleted links

Saul, those links are not to valid sources. Some even say that they are made by the person from other sources. Since we can't validate every graph that every person puts together, we have to insist on only the original data.

 

[Saul]

OK, Making eyeball guesstimates is not very accurate so let me get more exact numbers.

http://www.imcce.fr/Equipes/ASD/insola/earth/online/index.php

65N summer insolation peaked 17,000 years ago.

http://www.imcce.fr/tmp/insola/insolaoutKWaaCo

The coldest point of the last glaciation was ~25,000 years ago and 65N 360L was about -6Wm² less than the present.

But there are other factors besides orbital forcings and NH summer insolation at any given period. I was not arguing that 65N insolation was the only forcing involved, I was simply pointing out your error. Since your argument was based on bad information, your conclusion is suspect.

"Skyhunter 1st Quote:"No it isn't. 20,000 years ago was the coldest part of the last glacial period and insolation at 65N was ~20Wm² less than it is today.

"Skyhunter 2nd quote:"65N summer insolation peaked 17,000 years ago.

The coldest point of the last glaciation was ~25,000 years ago and 65N 360L was about -6Wm² less than the present.

Skyhunter,

You contradict yourself in the above quotes.

No it isn't. 20,000 years ago was the coldest part of the last glacial period and insolation at 65N was ~20Wm² less than it is today.

This interglacial period began roughly 20,000 years ago. The past six interglacial periods have been around 15,000 years long. The glacial periods are 100,000 years long. Do we agree what has happened before? i.e. I am not stating a theory I am stating the what the paleoclimatic data indicates. i.e. The mechanism must explain what has happened before.

The current interglacial period started about 20,000 years ago. As you note the coldest period of the last glacial period was about 25,000 years ago. Solar insolation in the summer has become progressive less at the 65N. When the interglacial started 20,000 years ago the Earth was closest to the sun in June. Now 20,000 years later the Earth is closest to the sun in January, which makes summers colder now then they were 20,000 years ago.

We both agree and multi papers state something else besides solar insolation is abruptly forcing the planet's climate. When you look at the peculiar saw shaped glacial/interglacial cycle there is obviously some massive forcing function at work.

Suddenly in the middle the current warming "Holocene interglacial" 12,900 years ago, the planet abruptly returns to glacial cold for a 1000 years. (The abrupt cooling period is called the Younger Dryas cooling period named after an alpine flower that suddenly appears in the fossil record in mid latitudes in Europe.)

My point is the Younger Dryas abrupt cooling event is one of a series of abrupt cooling events in the paleoclimatic record. There are cosmogenic isotope changes that are concurrent with the abrupt cooling events. Cosmogenic isotope changes are caused by interruptions in the solar magnetic cycle and geomagnetic field changes which then causes a massive increase in GCR.

 

[Saul]

As I said, there is a massive cosmogenic isotope change that is concurrent with a massive 1000 year abrupt cooling event which paleo climatologists have called the "Younger Dryas" cooling event.http://cio.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/root/2000/QuatIntRenssen/2000QuatIntRenssen.pdf

Reduced solar activity as a trigger for the start of the Younger Dryas?

The Younger Dryas (YD, 12.9-11.6 ka cal BP, Alley et al., 1993) was a cold event that interrupted the general warming trend during the last deglaciation. The YD was not unique, as it represents the last of a number of events during the Late Pleistocene, all characterised by rapid and intensive cooling in the North Atlantic region (e.g., Bond et al., 1993; Anderson, 1997). During these events, icebergs were common in the N Atlantic Ocean, as evidenced by ice-rafted sediments found in ocean cores. The most prominent of these episodes with ice rafting are known as Heinrich events (e.g., Bond et al., 1992, 1993; Andrews, 1998). A Heinrich-like event (H-0) was simultaneous with the YD (Andrews et al., 1995). Moreover, the YD seems to be part of a millennial-scale cycle of cool climatic events that extends into the Holocene (Denton and KarleHn, 1973; Harvey, 1980; Magny and Ru!aldi, 1995; O'Brien et al., 1995; Bond et al., 1997). Based on analysis of the 14C record from tree rings, Stuiver and Braziunas (1993) suggested that solar variability could be an important factor a!ecting climate variations during the Holocene (see also Magny, 1993, 1995a), possibly operating together with oceanic forcing.

Evidence for solar variations in the geological past may be inferred from cosmogenic isotope records (Hoyt and Schatten, 1997). The two most important of these isotopes are carbon-14 (14C) and beryllium-10 (10Be),... Estimates for the increase in 14C at the start of the YD all demonstrate a strong and rapid rise: 40-70 %/% within 300 years (Goslar et al., 1995), 30-60 %/% in 70 years (BjoK rck et al., 1996), 50-80%/% in 200 years (Hughen et al., 1998) and 70%/% in 200 years (Hajdas et al., 1998). This change is apparently the largest increase of atmospheric 14C known from late glacial and Holocene records (Goslar et al., 1995). Hajdas et al. (1998) used this sharp increase of atmospheric 14C at the onset of the YD as a tool for time correlation between sites.

There is evidence is the sun is moving to a complete solar magnetic cycle interruption, not a slow down.

The magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots has been linearly decreasing with time. It is believed sunspots are created at interface of the convection zone and the radiative zone (the tachocline). The sunspot requires a minimum field strength of around 1500 gauss to avoid being torn to pieces as it moves up to the surface of the sun through the turbulent convection zone.

Sunspots from the previous cycle are believed to move back down to tachocline to form the seeds for the next cycle, which explains why there is some periodicity between every second cycle. (The period of the convection motion motion is 22 years.). An interesting and unanswered question is how does the solar magnetic cycle re-start after being interrupted?

http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009EO300001.pdf

Are Sunspots Different During This Solar Minimum?

But something is unusual about the current sunspot cycle. The current solar minimum has been unusually long, and with more than 670 days without sunspots through June 2009, the number of spotless days has not been equaled since 1933 (see http:// users . telenet .be/ j . janssens/ Spotless/ Spotless .html). The solar wind is reported to be in a uniquely low energy state since space measurements began nearly 40 years ago [Fisk and Zhao, 2009].

The same data were later published [Penn and Livingston, 2006], and the observations showed that the magnetic field strength in sunspots were decreasing with time, independent of the sunspot cycle. A simple linear extrapolation of those data suggested that sunspots might completely vanish by 2015.

Yet although the Sun’s magnetic polarity has reversed and the new solar cycle has been detected, most of the new cycle’s spots have been tiny “pores” without penumbrae (see Figure 1); in fact, nearly all of these features are seen only on flux magnetograms and are difficult to detect on whitelight images.

 

[Andre]

The problem with the Younger Dryas is that if you really research it meticulously, checking out a couple of hundred studies on methodology, especially on dating calibration, the cold image crumbles. One example:

http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/30/5/427

Anomalously mild Younger Dryas summer conditions in southern Greenland

abstract

The first late-glacial lake sediments found in Greenland were analyzed with respect to a variety of environmental variables. The analyzed sequence covers the time span between 14 400 and 10 500 calendar yr B.P., and the data imply that the conditions in southernmost Greenland during the Younger Dryas stadial, 12 800–11 550 calendar yr B.P., were characterized by an arid climate with cold winters and mild summers, preceded by humid conditions with cooler summers. Climate models imply that such an anomaly may be explained by local climatic phenomenon caused by high insolation and Föhn effects. ... cont'd

Note that model speculations don't count as evidence.

 

[Saul]

The problem with the Younger Dryas is that if you really research it meticulously, checking out a couple of hundred studies on methodology, especially on dating calibration, the cold image crumbles. One example:

http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/30/5/427

Note that model speculations don't count as evidence.

Andre,

A melting ice in Greenland during the Younger Dryas does not mean the has not an abrupt cooling climatic climate change during the Younger Dryas that lasted a 1000 years.

If we understood the mechanism then interpreting the paleoclimatic record would be easier.

The Younger Dryas was the strongest climatic event in the Holocene, interglacial period. It was an abrupt climate event, not a gradual cooling. It lasted for 1000 years. During the Younger Dryas the North Atlantic froze each winter to a latitude of around mid-Spain.

There is a 6 fold increase in dust deposited on the Greenland ice sheet during the Younger Dryas cold period which indicates a massive increase in desertification due to abrupt cooling. As noted below the ice sheet dust changes occurs in less than 10 layers of ice. There is cycles of the abrupt increases in the dust deposited on the Greenland ice sheet.

Due to insolation, summers should have been warmer 12,900 years ago than now. Melt water in the Greenland region during the summer does not disprove an abrupt climatic cooling event occurred.

http://www.agu.org/revgeophys/mayews01/node6.html

The Younger Dryas (YD) was the most significant rapid climate change event that occurred during the last deglaciation of the North Atlantic region. Previous ice core studies have focused on the abrupt termination of this event [ Dansgaard et al., 1989] because this transition marks the end of the last major climate reorganization during the deglaciation. Most recently the YD has been redated--using precision, subannually resolved, multivariate measurements from the GISP2 core--as an event of 1300 70 years duration that terminated abruptly, as evidenced by an 7 C rise in temperature and a twofold increase in accumulation rate, at 11.64 kyr BP [ Alley et al., 1993] (Figure 2). The transition into the Preboreal (PB), the PB/YD transition, and the YD/Holocene transition were all remarkably fast, each occurring over a period of a decade or so [ Alley et al., 1993]. Fluctuations in the electrical conductivity of GISP2 ice on the scale of <5-20 years have been used to reveal rapid changes in the dust content of the atmosphere during the same periods and throughout the last glacial [ Taylor et al., 1993b]. These rapid changes appear to reflect a type of ``flickering'' between preferred states of the atmosphere [ Taylor et al., 1993b], which provides a new view of climate change. Holocene climates are by comparison stable and warm.

High resolution (mean: 3.48 years/sample), continuous measurements of GISP2 major anions (chloride, sulfate and nitrate) and cations (sodium, magnesium, potassium, calcium and ammonium) were used to reconstruct the paleoenvironment during the YD because these series record the history of the major soluble constituents transported in the atmosphere and deposited over central Greenland [ Mayewski et al., 1993c]. These multivariate glaciochemical records provide a robust indication of changes in the characteristics of the sources of these soluble components or changes in their transport paths, in response to climate change. A dramatic example is provided by the calcium series (Figure 2) covering the last 10-18 kyr BP. Prominent periods of increased dustiness have been observed in the record, peaking approximately every 500 years (see figures in Mayewski et al. [1993c]): during the early PB at 11.4 kyr BP; throughout the YD at 11.81, 12.22 and 12.64 kyr BP; during the Bolling/Allerod (B/A) at 13.18, 13.65, and 14.02 kyr BP; and during much of the Glacial. Such events have been attributed by Mayewski et al. [1993c] to changes in the size of the polar atmospheric cell and in source regions (e.g., growth and decay of continental biogenic and terrestrial source regions).

The climate change that accompanied the YD was not restricted to Greenland. The record of variations in the CH concentration of trapped gases in the GRIP ice core [ Chappellaz et al., 1993] shows that tropical and subtropical climates were colder and drier during the YD and also earlier cold events. The major natural source region of CH is low-latitude wetlands [ Chappellaz et al., 1993]; higher atmospheric concentrations are presumably due to the greater areal extent of tropical and subtropical wetlands [ Chappellaz et al., 1993].

 

[Andre]

No Saul, the Bjorck et al paper is just an example.

Another example, starting with the A:

http://esp.cr.usgs.gov/research/alaska/PDF/Ager2003QR.pdf

..A brief invasion of Populus (poplar, aspen) occurred ca.11,000–9500 14C yr B.P., overlapping with the Younger Dryas interval of dry, cooler(?) climate...

and in the discussion:

...At Zagoskin Lake, the time interval for the Populus-Salix assemblage overlaps with the Younger Dryas interval of colder, drier climate that has been documented in several areas of Alaska (e.g., Peteet and Mann, 1994). It is unclear why an interval of apparently colder, drier climate might favor the expansion of Populus and Salix populations, even into areas beyond the present day range of Populus trees...

How many more shall I present?

 

[Saul]

No Saul, the Bjorck et al paper is just an example.

Another example, starting with the A:

http://esp.cr.usgs.gov/research/alaska/PDF/Ager2003QR.pdf

and in the discussion:

How many more shall I present?

Andre,

I am not sure what your point or mechanism is. The paper you quote above discusses a microclimatic region (Bering Straight) where the Pacific Ocean significantly moderates the climate. i.e. That area and similar microclimate regions could be less cold than the Northern Hemisphere as a whole.

The Younger Dryas Greenland Ice sheet cooling occurred in less than a decade. Your paper does challenge the observation of rapid and extreme cooling on the Greenland Ice sheet.

The Greenland Ice Sheet temperatures dropped -15C as compared today. The Northern Atlantic ocean froze to the latitude of mid Spain. Why? What planetary or external change caused the planet to change.

As I note there are cosmogenic isotope changes that are concurrent to the planetary temperature changes.

There is a cycle of warming and abrupt cooling periods throughout the glacial and interglacial period which show evidences of an external forcing function. The forcing occurs regardless of surface events. Its effect (the external forcing function) depends on surface events at the time of the occurrence.

 

[Saul]

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

People have been silent on the list of paradoxes concerning Milankovitch's theory.

Milankovitch's theory does not explain the observations. There is evidence of abrupt warmings and coolings that do not correlate with any surface events.

The 100,000 year problem
The 100,000-year problem is that the eccentricity variations have a significantly smaller impact on solar forcing than precession or obliquity and hence might be expected to produce the weakest effects. However, observations show that during the last 1 million years, the strongest climate signal is the 100,000-year cycle. In addition, despite the relatively large 100,000-year cycle, some have argued that the length of the climate record is insufficient to establish a statistically significant relationship between climate and eccentricity variations.[6] Some models can however reproduce the 100,000 year cycles as a result of non-linear interactions between small changes in the Earth's orbit and internal oscillations of the climate system.[7][8]

The 400,000 year problem
The 400,000-year problem is that the eccentricity variations have a strong 400,000-year cycle. That cycle is only clearly present in climate records older than the last million years. If the 100 ka variations are having such a strong effect, the 400 ka variations might also be expected to be apparent. This is also known as the stage 11 problem, after the interglacial in marine isotopic stage 11 which would be unexpected if the 400,000-year cycle has an impact on climate. The relative absence of this periodicity in the marine isotopic record may be due, at least in part, to the response times of the climate system components involved — in particular, the carbon cycle.

The Stage 5 Problem
The stage 5 problem refers to the timing of the penultimate interglacial (in marine isotopic stage 5) which appears to have begun 10 thousand years in advance of the solar forcing hypothesized to have been causing it. This is also referred to as the causality problem. Effect exceeds cause 420,000 years of ice core data from Vostok, Antarctica research station.

The effects of these variations are primarily believed to be due to variations in the intensity of solar radiation upon various parts of the globe. Observations show climate behaviour is much more intense than the calculated variations. Various internal characteristics of climate systems are believed to be sensitive to the insolation changes, causing amplification (positive feedback) and damping responses (negative feedback).

The unsplit peak problem
The unsplit peak problem refers to the fact that eccentricity has cleanly resolved variations at both the 95 and 125 ka periods. A sufficiently long, well-dated record of climate change should be able to resolve both frequencies [5], but some researchers interpret climate records of the last million years as showing only a single spectral peak at 100 ka periodicity. It is debatable whether the quality of existing data ought to be sufficient to resolve both frequencies over the last million years.

The transition problem
The transition problem refers to the change in the frequency of climate variations 1 million years ago. From 1-3 million years, climate had a dominant mode matching the 41 ka cycle in obliquity. After 1 million years ago, this changed to a 100 ka variation matching eccentricity. No reason for this change has been established.

 

[Saul]

The following is additional evidence that indicates Milankovitch's theory is not correct and there is an external mechanism that is forcing the planet's temperature.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=24476

Glacial Records Depict Ice Age Climate In Synch Worldwide

An answer to the long-standing riddle of whether the Earth's ice ages occurred simultaneously in both the Southern and Northern hemispheres is emerging from the glacial deposits found in the high desert east of the Andes.

"The results are significant because they indicate that the whole Earth experiences major ice age cold periods at the same time, and thus, some climate forcing mechanism must homogenize the Earth's climate system during ice ages and, by inference, other periods," says Michael R. Kaplan, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Edinburgh who conducted the work in a postdoctoral position at UW-Madison

"During the last two times in Earth's history when glaciation occurred in North America, the Andes also had major glacial periods," says Kaplan.

"Because the Earth is oriented in space in such a way that the hemispheres are out of phase in terms of the amount of solar radiation they receive, it is surprising to find that the climate in the Southern Hemisphere cooled off repeatedly during a period when it received its largest dose of solar radiation," says Singer. "Moreover, this rapid synchronization of atmospheric temperature between the polar hemispheres appears to have occurred during both of the last major ice ages that gripped the Earth."

This is evidence that the short term planetary temperature changes in this interglacial period are global and synchronous. The synchronicity rules out ocean current as a possible mechanism as the time for ocean currents changes in the Northern Hemisphere to affect the Southern Hemisphere is theoretically around 1000 years.

A second as serious issue with the ocean current mechanism (likely a show stopper) is the recently confirmed finding that the deep ocean conveyor does not exist. There is therefore no ocean current mechanism to teleconnect the two hemispheres even with a time delay.

http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/33/3/237

Evidence of early Holocene glacial advances in southern South America from cosmogenic surface-exposure dating

Cosmogenic nuclide surface-exposure dating reveals that glaciers in southern South America (46°S) advanced ca. 8.5 and 6.2 ka, likely as a result of a northward migration of the Southern Westerlies that caused an increase in precipitation and/or a decrease in temperature at this latitude. The older advance precedes the currently accepted initiation of Holocene glacial activity in southern South America by 3000 yr. Both of these advances are temporally synchronous with Holocene climate oscillations that occurred in Greenland and the rest of the world. If there are causal links between these events, then rapid climate changes appear to be either externally forced (e.g., solar variability) or are rapidly propagated around the globe (e.g., atmospheric processes).

 

[Andre]

Andre,

I am not sure what your point or mechanism is. The paper you quote above discusses a microclimatic region (Bering Straight) where the Pacific Ocean significantly moderates the climate. i.e. That area and similar microclimate regions could be less cold than the Northern Hemisphere as a whole.

The Younger Dryas Greenland Ice sheet cooling occurred in less than a decade. Your paper does challenge the observation of rapid and extreme cooling on the Greenland Ice sheet.

The Greenland Ice Sheet temperatures dropped -15C as compared today. The Northern Atlantic ocean froze to the latitude of mid Spain. Why? What planetary or external change caused the planet to change.

As I note there are cosmogenic isotope changes that are concurrent to the planetary temperature changes.

There is a cycle of warming and abrupt cooling periods throughout the glacial and interglacial period which show evidences of an external forcing function. The forcing occurs regardless of surface events. Its effect (the external forcing function) depends on surface events at the time of the occurrence.

I know, it's a bit weird to challenge the cold of the Younger Dryas and oppose all parties in the climatology, "warmers" and "deniers", but it's just the outcome of my years of research into that direction as I shall prove. There is no other option than to be absolutely accurate about the data before the suppositions can start and we are far away from that.

So, I'm afraid, it's all a bit different. and I still have dozens of "micro" climates on my sleeve. After the B of Bjorck, we now have the C for Columbia.

Van’t Veer R., G.A. Islebe, H. Hooghiemstra, 2000; Climate change during the Younger Dryas chron in Northern South America: a test of the evidence. Quartenary Science Review Vol 19 (2000) pp 1821 - 1835

Abstract

New AMS and palynological data are presented from the Colombian Andes to assess vegetational and climatic change during the Lateglacial-Holocene transition, with special emphasis on the Younger Dryas (YD) chronozone.

...From ca. 11,000 to ca. 10,500 14C yr BP there is a sharp increase of subparamo and paramo pollen, reflecting a relatively cool phase during the YD chronozone (zone Y1). After ca. 10,500 14C yr BP, a slight increase of arboreal pollen and the presence of Cactaceae (zone Z1) point toward a relatively milder but drier phase extending to ca. 9000 14C yr BP in the earliest Holocene...

The sharp boundary at 11,000 and 10,500 year 14C BP, carbon dated, convert to 12,920 and 12,600 calendar years BP using the INTCAL04 calibration table so that cooling period is mosty before the beginning of the Younger Dryas that started about 12680 "varve" counted years ago (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V6R-4CWBMMN-2&_user=10&_coverDate=08%2F19%2F2004&_alid=1045205706&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=5821&_sort=r&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=5&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=88acc331cfe014c99e4b2d3fa69e7c56)

So the warm period after 10,500 carbon years is actually in the middle of the Younger Dryas. Furthermore, peek at Lucke and Brauer again:

High lacustrine primary production was further favored by relatively warm YD summer temperatures.

so we have yet another micro climate here, but now in Germany, Europe.

So if you find all these discrepancies, are these all micro climates? or is something more seriously wrong with our interpretations?

 

[Skyhunter]

Skyhunter,

You contradict yourself in the above quotes.

What part of:

OK, Making eyeball guesstimates is not very accurate so let me get more exact numbers.

didn't you understand?

Since my second post was specifically to offer more precise numbers... why are you accusing me of contradicting myself?

This interglacial period began roughly 20,000 years ago. The past six interglacial periods have been around 15,000 years long. The glacial periods are 100,000 years long. Do we agree what has happened before? i.e. I am not stating a theory I am stating the what the paleoclimatic data indicates. i.e. The mechanism must explain what has happened before.

The current interglacial period started about 20,000 years ago. As you note the coldest period of the last glacial period was about 25,000 years ago. Solar insolation in the summer has become progressive less at the 65N. When the interglacial started 20,000 years ago the Earth was closest to the sun in June. Now 20,000 years later the Earth is closest to the sun in January, which makes summers colder now then they were 20,000 years ago.

The current interglacial is known as the http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/quaternary/hol.html" and it began ~10,000 years ago, not 20,000.

We both agree and multi papers state something else besides solar insolation is abruptly forcing the planet's climate. When you look at the peculiar saw shaped glacial/interglacial cycle there is obviously some massive forcing function at work.

Suddenly in the middle the current warming "Holocene interglacial" 12,900 years ago, the planet abruptly returns to glacial cold for a 1000 years. (The abrupt cooling period is called the Younger Dryas cooling period named after an alpine flower that suddenly appears in the fossil record in mid latitudes in Europe.)

My point is the Younger Dryas abrupt cooling event is one of a series of abrupt cooling events in the paleoclimatic record. There are cosmogenic isotope changes that are concurrent with the abrupt cooling events. Cosmogenic isotope changes are caused by interruptions in the solar magnetic cycle and geomagnetic field changes which then causes a massive increase in GCR.

The Younger-Dryas preceded the Holocene. One theory is that a http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/323/5910/94" and caused the abrupt cooling, but the more likely cause was a Dansgaard/Oeschger event. Here are two recent papers that synchronize the Antarctic and Greenland ice cores.

Do you have a link showing the cosmogenic isotope proxies that coincide with the 100,000 year glaciations?

It is my understanding that they isotope proxies reveal a 2500 year cycle.

How does the GCR theory explain the tropical Earth and snowball Earth events?

How do you explain the anti-correlation with low clouds and medium altitude clouds?

 

[Skyhunter]

Here is a comparison of the Delta ¹⁸O ice core records.

The Y-D event was not globally synchronous.

 

[Saul]

Here is a comparison of the Delta ¹⁸O ice core records.

The Y-D event was not globally synchronous.

Skyhunter if you look at this graph there is abrupt interglacial warming that began 15,000 years ago, not 10,000 years ago. The start of the warming is the start of the interglacial. Your comment is correct, the Holocene period is defined as the warming that occurs after the Younger Dryas event. Interglacial periods are typically 15,000 years long.

The Younger Dyras cooling affected the tropics in addition to the Northern Hemisphere. I believe there was cooling in the Southern Hemisphere however not a 1000 year cooling period as occurred in the Northern Hemisphere.

What is key (to explain in terms of mechanism) about the Younger Dryas event is the rapidity and magnitude of cooling event. Also note the North Hemisphere was cold for a 1000 years. Impacts to the planet or volcanic eruptions cool the planet for a few years. Those how appeal to impacts and volcanic eruptions cannot explain the duration of the cooling event. Insolation at 65N is at maximum during the Younger Dryas cooling event, the oceans will retain there heat and will not cool based on increased cloud cover for a couple of years.

Thinking in terms of mechanism what is required is a mechanism that can abrupt cool one hemisphere and regions in a hemisphere more than others in addition to a mechanism that can cool the entire planet.

The were other cooling events, as per my comments in links, that concurrently effected both hemispheres. Including the long term cooling glacial cycle for the last two glacial cycles.

The problem of course with the finding of long term glacial cooling occurring in both hemispheres at the same time is insolation can only cool one hemisphere based on insolation at 65 degree latitude. The other hemisphere is 180 degrees out of phase and will be receiving maximum insolation in the summer. If both hemispheres abruptly cool something else is forcing the planet's climate.

Everyone that is interested in Milankovitch's theory look closely at this link that shows how the planet's temperature has changed vs insolation for the last 800,000 years.

Look closely at this comparison of insolation at 65N Vs planetary temperature. Skyhunter, how do explain the planet becoming colder and colder over 100,000 years and then 15,000 years ago abruptly warming? Also if you look at insolation at 65N compared to past glacial/interglacial cycles, there is a lack of proportional change. Insolation is has become less and less in the last 15,000 years.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/MilankovitchCyclesOrbitandCores.png

This also is interesting. Using ocean floor sediments this graph shows how planetary temperature has changed over the last 5 million years. You can see the evidence of the abrupt forcing function in the plot. What is confusing the researchers is they initially selected the incorrect mechanism.

As Jasper Kirkby notes in his review paper, the geomagnetic field intensity now peaks during the interglacial and is stronger in intensity than during normal periods. There is also a cycle of 41 kyrs in the geomagnetic field.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png

 

[Saul]

What part of:


Do you have a link showing the cosmogenic isotope proxies that coincide with the 100,000 year glaciations?

This is the paper that shows there is 100,000 period for geomagnetic field intensity changes. (The geomagnetic field intensity is 5 to 6 times greater during the interglacial period. For the last 40 kyr lava flows can be used to determine geomagnetic field intensity quite precisely. All accept that the geomagnetic field intensity has increased 5 to 6 times from the cold glacial period to the warm interglacial period. Jasper Kirkby discusses the correlation of geomagnetic field intensity with planetary climate.) The GCR is modulate by the geomagnetic intensity in terms of the intensity of the GCR that strikes the planet and the latitudes the GCR can reach.

The 100kyr magnetic cycle paper's hypothesized mechanism for what is modulating the geomagnetic field intensity is not correct. The eccentricity of the planet's orbit changes how the periodic solar event affects the planet. The effect is greater when the orbital eccentricity is greater. The effect is also greater when the orbital tilt is greater. Based on the timing of abrupt cooling event the solar event occurs with periodicity of roughly 8000 to 12,000 years.

So if you have a solar event that is semi periodic and its effect on the geomagnetic field depends on the planetary orbital changes (tilt, timing of aphelion, and orbital eccentricity) and also on the amount of the planet's surface that is covered with ice sheets, a person is not going to understand what is happening (the observations) without a correct strawman mechanism. Picking an incorrect mechanism will force other assumptions to be incorrect in an attempt to try to match the paleo record. (Look at the paleo record of temperatures for the last 5 million years.)

http://www.geo.uu.nl/~forth/people/Hirokuni/Hiro2002a.pdf

Orbital Influence on Earth’s Magnetic Field: 100,000-Year Periodicity in Inclination

A continuous record of the inclination and intensity of Earth’s magnetic field, during the past 2.25 million years, was obtained from a marine sediment core of 42 meters in length. This record reveals the presence of 100,000-year periodicity in inclination and intensity, which suggests that the magnetic field is modulated by orbital eccentricity. The correlation between inclination and intensity shifted from antiphase to in-phase, corresponding to a magnetic polarity change from reversed to normal. To explain the observation, we propose a model in which the strength of the geocentric axial dipole field varies with 100,000-year periodicity, whereas persistent nondipole components do not.

 

[Skyhunter]

Thanks I will try and read it today.

 

[Skyhunter]

I could find no validation for the intensity of the magnetic field intensity being 5-6 times stronger than during the last glaciation. In fact what I read offered evidence that overall it remains fairly constant over time, weakening during reversals.

http://www.terrapub.co.jp/e-library/ecp/pdf/EC0075.PDF

 

[Saul]

I could find no validation for the intensity of the magnetic field intensity being 5-6 times stronger than during the last glaciation. In fact what I read offered evidence that overall it remains fairly constant over time, weakening during reversals.

http://www.terrapub.co.jp/e-library/ecp/pdf/EC0075.PDF

Check figure 9 and compare to paleoclimatic data.

Time Variations in the Geomagnetic Intensity

http://www.eos.ubc.ca/~mjelline/453website/eosc453/E_prints/2001RG000104.pdf

Figure 9. (a) Field variations during the past 75 kyr (North Atlantic paleointensity stack (NAPIS-75)) generated by stacking six independent records from the North Atlantic Ocean [Laj et al., 2000a] plotted with the most recent version of the Sint-200 database (error bars are drawn from the standard deviation around the mean value). These stacks are compared to the composite record of the volcanic database [Perrin and Shcherbakov, 1998] obtained after averaging VADMs within 500- and 1000-yr-long time intervals [Yang et al., 2000] for the past 45 kyr. (b)

The discovery of fast millennium spaced geomagnetic field intensity changes is fairly recent.

http://www.dstu.univ-montp2.fr/LGHF/equip/gaillot/PDF/6_EPSL184.PDF

Wavelet analysis of relative geomagnetic paleointensity at ODP Site 983

As I noted, it appears the solar magnetic field is periodically interrupted. When it restarts a series of massive coronal mass ejections occur. The region of the planet where these CME strike is dependent on planetary tilt and the timing of aphelion (I believe the seasonal timing of aphelion controls which hemisphere the strikes occur in.)

The effect is significantly amplified when the Earth's orbit is more eccentric.

There appears to be a permanent charge difference from the solar core to solar surface. The sunspots help equalize the solar core charge build-up. Evidence to support this statement would be an increase in volcanic activity during solar minimums and super volcanic eruptions during deep solar minimums. What is happening is the planets also become charged and as there is a significant time delay for the planet's core to equalize with the surface of the planet.

When there is a deep solar magnetic cycle interruption, there is a change in the solar system charge balance at the orbit of each planet. As the charge balance on the surface of the planet has changed there is charge movement from the core to the planet's surface to try to equalize. There are multiple solar system observations to support this statement as well as many anomalous terrestrial observations.