An Alternative View of Global Warming

by

Daniel P Johnston May, 2008

The other night I was watching one of the innumerable specials on global warming when I heard what can only be described as one of the most arrogant statements ever made by man. The speaker was being interviewed about the causes of global warming and said something to the effect-“We know what causes global warming-CO2 and other human generated pollution going into the atmosphere and trapping heat energy. There is no longer any debate on this issue.” I was somewhat taken aback by this certitude and had to wonder whether if this gentleman had lived during the time of Copernicus he would have been a member of the Flat Earth Society. I decided to look into the facts behind global warming more deeply and see if the theory of consensus on global warming is correct.

80

400

60

350

40

300

20

250

0

200

1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

-20

150

-40

100

-60

50

-80

CO2 Concentration (ppmv)

Temperature Anomaly (0C X 100)

The first thing I did was to venture onto the web in search of information supporting the anthropogenic greenhouse gas cause for global warming. I have to admit, on the face of it, the graph comparing global temperature change to the rise in atmospheric CO2 as measured at Mauna Loa is convincing. Figure 1 below shows the correlation.

Global Temperature Anomaly CO2 5 per. Mov. Avg. (Global Temperature Anomaly)

0 Year

Figure 1 Global temperature anomaly and atmospheric CO2 concentration versus year.

Since about 1970, the global temperature anomaly and the atmospheric CO2 concentration appear in lockstep and this correlation has been assumed to represent a causal relationship where the CO2, a notorious greenhouse gas is trapping heat energy that would otherwise reflect back into space and causing Earth’s temperature to rise. Conceivably, such a mechanism is a juggernaut that can not be stopped but only slowed down by reducing anthropogenic CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions. Such is the basis for the Kyoto Accords and the Green Movement worldwide.

© 2008 Daniel P. Johnston All Rights Reserved

2

Reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions is a laudable effort even without a tie-in to Global Warming and should continue because of its ultimate benefit to the planet and future generations. That being said, will it help to alleviate and moderate the devastating effects on the global economy, food production and human existence being predicted by numerous adherents of the theory? Only if reducing CO2 and other greenhouse gases derived from human activity is truly the primary solution to problem. To understand how global warming manifests in terms of actual increases in average temperatures both globally and from a zonal perspective I went to the excellent NASA GISS website http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/ and generated a surface temperature anomalies map covering the period from 1970-2007 shown below as Figure 2. The website also generates a zonal means distribution for latitudinal variation shown in Figure 3. The first thing apparent about this graphic is the concentration of the greatest warming in the higher latitudes of the northern and southern hemispheres as well as the significant differences between north and south. This is confirmed by the zonal distribution where the maximum warming is clearly at polar latitudes. The melting of the Arctic sea ice, threatening animals like polar bears, and the detachment of a Delawaresized chunk of Ronne Ice Shelf off Antarctica in the early 1990’s have plainly demonstrated this effect.

Figure 2 Surface temperature anomalies 1970-2007

© 2008 Daniel P. Johnston All Rights Reserved

3

Figure 3 Zonal means distribution for latitudinal variation.

From a purely theoretical point of view, the augmented heating of the polar regions compared to the rest of the planet is diametrically opposite of what would be expected if the increasing surface temperatures were solely due to the greenhouse gas effect. Under this type of warming, the Equator should be the zone of maximum temperature increase and the poles at a minimum due to the high albedo of the ice caps and the seasonal lack of sunshine. The equator, on the other hand, receives a maximum of solar irradiance and also has abundant water vapor in the atmosphere, another greenhouse gas. In fact, much of the effort to “prove” the anthropogenic hypothesis for global warming has been directed at debunking other mechanisms that might explain global warming such as the Milanković Cycles and solar forcing due to sunspot cycles. The Milanković Cycles are the changes in the earth’s orbital parameters such as precession, obliquity and eccentricity that drive the Ice Ages. Unfortunately for anthropogenic skeptics, these cycles clearly put the Earth in a cooling stage and, until the last two decades, many scientists supported the Earth’s being on the verge of the next Ice Age. The 22 year sunspot cycle as a source of global warming has also been discounted, primarily due to the estimated current 0.1% variation of solar output measured by satellite. The lack of corroborative evidence for any other known mechanism capable of explaining global warming has put the greenhouse gas adherents in the enviable position of saying “It’s got to be anthropogenic because there are no other feasible explanations and, no matter how poorly this theory explains all the “inconvenient” facts which don’t support the greenhouse effect being the only source, we can assume these unexpected variations are the result of the sheer complexity of our climate.” Hence the arrogant statement that drove me to look into this question for myself. Since we know that the degree of warming varies across latitude, it might be interesting to compare the zonal rate of temperature increase since 1970 across latitudinal zones. Figure 4 below does just that by using linear regression on each latitudinal band in the

© 2008 Daniel P. Johnston All Rights Reserved

4

Northern Hemisphere

Southern Hemisphere 64N-44N

90N-64N

44N-24N

Linear (90N-64N)

Linear (44N-24N)

24N-Eq

Linear (64N-44N)

Linear (24N-Eq)

240

240 220

220

0

180

y = 5.1x - 10091 R2 = 0.6451

160 140

0

Temperature Anomaly ( C X 100)

180

200

A Temperature Anomaly ( C X 100)

200

120 100 80 60 40

B

160 140

y = 3.7529x - 7413.3 R2 = 0.696

120 100 80 60 40 20

20 0 1965 -20

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

0 1965 -20

2010

y = 2.773x - 5480.4 R2 = 0.7514

-40

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2005

2010

y = 2.1228x - 4190.8 R2 = 0.7063

-40 -60

-60

90S-64N

44S-24S

Linear (90S-64N)

Linear (44S-24S)

64S-44N

240 220 200

200 180

160 140

0

120

y = 0.0217x - 10.029 R2 = 4E-05

100 80 60 40 20 0 1965 -20 -40

Linear (64S-44N)

Linear (24S-Eq)

220

C Temperature Anomaly ( C X 100)

0

Temperature Anomaly ( C X 100)

180

24S-Eq

240

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

y = 0.6978x - 1369.6 R2 = 0.3629

140 120 100

y = 0.7156x - 1396.4 R2 = 0.1694

80 60 40 20 0 1965 -20 -40

-60

D

160

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

y = 1.7816x - 3516.2 R2 = 0.5758

-60

Year

Year

Figure 4 Zonal temperature anomaly versus year regression plots. A-90N-64N & 44N-24N; B-64N-44N & 24N-Equator; C- 90S-64S & 44S-24S; B-64S-44S & 24S-Equator.

GISS Zonal Database. Each plot is identically scaled to illustrate the marked reduction in heating going from the North Pole southwards. Figure 5 shows plots of the slopes of these best fit lines versus the median latitude for each zone and the average temperature anomaly for each zone. Included in these plots is a curve showing the average geomagnetic field strength F (in nanotesla) across latitudes based on averaging F across the median latitudes at 10o longitude intervals using the 2005 World Magnetic Model 2005 Calculator from the British Geological Survey website (http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/gifs/wmm_calc.html). The reason for including this parameter in the graph is simply the fact that the first thing that comes to mind in terms of a significant difference between the polar regions and the equator is the Earth’s magnetic field which is strongest at the poles and weakest at the equator. There seems to be some correspondence in the graphs, especially for the northern hemisphere. Could there be some change in the geomagnetic field which could possibly be contributing, at least in part, to the global warming phenomena?

© 2008 Daniel P. Johnston All Rights Reserved

5

2000

Table 1 presents a tabulation of the zonal temperature anomaly data from 1970 to 2007. The first thing noticeable is the total lack of correlation for the southernmost zones where the correlation coefficients indicate that the linear regression model is inappropriate, the next is the much better correspondence of the average temperature anomalies against Temperature Anomaly Slope

Total Field

60000

4.00 45000 3.00 40000 2.00

35000

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

30000 -10 0

60

55000

50

50000

40

45000

30

40000

20

1.00

35000

10

0.00 10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

-90

90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

30000 -10 0

0 10

20

30

40

50

60

0

0

Latitude ( )

Latitude ( )

Figure 4 Plots of temperature anomaly slope and average anomaly vs latitude 1970-2007. Table 1 Regression and Descriptive Statistical Parameters for Zonal Temperature Anomalies Median Latitude (0)

Temperature Anomaly Slope

Correlation Coefficient (R2)

Mean (0C x 100)

Standard Deviation

Minimum (0C x 100)

Maximum (0C x 100)

90N-64N

77

5.10

0.65

50.50

70.57

-63

227

64N-44N

54

3.75

0.70

49.42

49.99

-60

140

44N-24N

34

2.77

0.75

33.58

35.55

-33

97

24N-Eq

12

2.12

0.71

30.32

28.07

-29

87

Eq-24S

-12

1.78

0.58

26.53

26.09

-27

88

24S-44S

-34

0.70

0.70

17.97

12.87

-15

41

44S-64S

-54

0.72

0.17

26.63

19.32

-18

58

64S-90S

-77

0.02

0.00

33.05

38.89

-35

131

Zone

the magnetic field strengths for the same latitudes. A possible explanation of the difference lies in the nature of the geomagnetic field. In the northern hemisphere, the field is relatively consistent with latitude. In the southern hemisphere, on the other hand, the field distribution is warped by the South Atlantic Anomaly, clearly visible in Figure 6, where the inner Van Allen belt makes its closest approach to the Earth and the geomagnetic field is much weaker than expected. In other words, if some effect due to the properties of the Earth’s magnetic field is contributing to global warming, the response to the effect should be much more apparent for the northern hemisphere. In fact, when the question is raised of what is changing that corresponds to the onset of global warming, one change that qualifies is the gradual weakening of the Earth’s magnetic field. The field has been weakening for some time, as long as humanity has known of its existence, and this change, which reflects an internal change in the dynamics of the iron core of the Earth, certainly qualifies as significant enough to have profound

© 2008 Daniel P. Johnston All Rights Reserved

6

70

80

90

Average Temperature Anomaly ( 0 C x 100)

50000

Total Magnetic Field Strength ( nT )

Total Magnetic Field Strength ( nT )

5.00

-80

60000

6.00

55000

-90

Average Temperature Anomaly

7.00

Temperature Anomaly Slope

Total Field

Figure 5 Total field strength F isodynamic Chart as of 2005. Dipole

1950+

Linear (Pre-1950)

10

Dipole Moment ( x 1015 T m3 )

9.5

9

8.5

8

7.5 1550

y = -0.0036x + 15.156 R2 = 0.999

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

Year

Figure 6 Dipole moment decay over time. Note the ~1937 slope change

© 2008 Daniel P. Johnston All Rights Reserved

7

1950

2000

effects. One problem is the fact that, as far as we know, the weakening has been underway since 1550, the earliest year where data with regard to the principle measure of the geomagnetic field is available. This parameter is called the dipole moment. It is effectively the same as the north and south poles of any bar magnet except, in this case, the magnet is the Earth and the core is the generator of the dipole and resultant magnetic field. Figure 7 is a plot of the strength of the Earth’s dipole moment versus time since 1550 based on data from the British Geological Survey. What is interesting is the fact that the dipole moment decreased linearly for almost 400 years before sharply diverging and accelerating sometime before 1937, based on optimal regression fits to the data. This is intriguing and raises the question of whether or not the change in the geomagnetic field could possibly coincide with the onset of global warming. One of the numerous barbs aimed at the anthropogenic global warming camp is the anomalous warming which occurred during the 1920’s and lasted until the early forties. Figure 8 is from an interesting summary of the debate from the web A Skeptical Layman’s Guide to Anthropogenic Global Warming by Warren Meyer at http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/07/a-skeptical-lay.html . The issue raised by this graphic, produced from data provided by Sayun-Ichi Akasofu at the International Arctic Research Center University of Alaska at Fairbanks, illustrates one of the greatest barriers to acceptance of greenhouse gases being the sole source of global warming. Essentially, the Earth warmed briefly, especially in the Arctic, before the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere had risen sufficiently to be clearly defined as a causative agent.

Figure 7 Anomalous warming of the arctic beginning in the 1920’s.

The similarity of this earlier concentrated warming effect in the Arctic to today’s situation is striking and begs the question, again, of whether the same agent could be behind this warming as well as our current crisis. Figure 9 is a plot of dipole moment decrease and global temperature anomaly increase from 1970-2007. There is an extremely strong correlation (R2 = 0.786), especially considering the inherent variability © 2008 Daniel P. Johnston All Rights Reserved

8

of the global temperature anomaly from year to year. This could be considered a coincidence except for the much more localized correlations obtained from using geomagnetic observatory station data. These plots are shown in Figures 9 (northern hemisphere) and 10 (southern hemisphere) and illustrate essentially the same thing. The correlations were obtained by using the same zonal temperature data mentioned previously and running linear regressions against total field strength data for two stations in each zone. The predictive temperature anomaly results for all stations except M’Bour in the northern hemisphere and those between 64S and the South Pole are consistent with the dipole moment results. 100

8.00 Temp Anom = 2.0254*Year - 3996.4 R2 = 0.782

80

7.95

60

7.90 Global Temperature Anomaly

40

7.85

20

0 1965

-20

7.80

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

7.75 2010

Predicted Temperature Anomaly Magnetic Dipole Linear (Global Temperature Anomaly)

7.70

Temp Anom = -259.8*Dipole + 2068.1 R2 = 0.786; p = 1.32E-13

-40

7.65

Figure 8 Plot comparing global temperature anomaly and geomagnetic dipole moment 1970-2007.

Figure 11 and Table 2 show a similar analysis of the zonal temperature anomaly data analyzed against Total Field F for geomagnetic observatory stations at various latitudes. Again, there is a relatively uniform trend for stations in the northern hemisphere which falls off rapidly in the southern hemisphere. In other words, zonal temperature increases in the northern hemisphere correlate strongly against magnetic field decreases. One station, M’Bour, is the outlier in both graphs and was not included in the analysis. It happens to lie at the northern edge of the South Atlantic Anomaly which possibly explains its peculiar response and reinforces the enigmatic effect of a nonuniform field on latitudinal response. Although most of the southern hemisphere stations also show strong correlations, the relationship with latitude is less clear probably for the same reason as M’Bour.

© 2008 Daniel P. Johnston All Rights Reserved

9

CCS

Thule

Temp Anom

Alesun

Resolute Prediction

Meanook

230

59400

59200

CCS Prediction

A

Temp Anom

Meanok Prediction

Newport Prediction

60500

58400 30 58200

59500 Total Field Strength F ( nT )

80

58600

Temperature Anomaly ( 0C x 100 )

130 58800

150

60000

180 59000 Total Field Strength F ( nT )

Newport

B

100

59000 58500

50

58000 57500

0

57000 56500

-50

Temperture Anomaly ( 0C x 100 )

Resolute

-20 56000

57800 1965

1970

Fredericksburg

1975

1980

Tucson

1985

1990

Temp Anom

1995

2000

2005

Fredericksburg Prediction

55500 1965

-70 2010

Tucson Prediction

1970

M'Bour

1975

San Juan

1980

1985

1990

Temp Anom

1995

2000

M'Bour Prediction

2005

San Juan Prediction 100

44000 57000

C

42000

54000 50 53000 52000 0 51000 50000

Total Field Strength F (nT)

Total Field Strength F (nT)

D

80

100

55000

Temperature Anomaly ( 0C x 100)

56000

150

-100 2010

-50

60 40000 40 38000 20 36000 0

34000

Temperature Anomaly ( 0C x 100)

58000

-20

49000 48000 1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

-100 2010

32000 1965

Year

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

-40 2010

Year

Figure 9 Northern hemisphere zonal correlation plots. Total field F and temperature anomaly versus year. A- 90N-64N; B-64N-44N; C-44N-24N; D-24NEquator

© 2008 Daniel P. Johnston All Rights Reserved

10

Mirny

Temp Anom

Scott Prediction

Mirny Prediction

McQuarie

Temp Anom

McQuarie Prediction 60

65600 70000

68000

140

A

120

65400

B

50

66000 60 64000

40 20

62000 0

40 Total Field Strength F (nT)

80

Temperature Anomaly ( 0C x 100 )

Total Field Strength F ( nT )

100 65200

30 65000 20 64800 10 64600 0

-20

Temperature Anomaly ( 0C x 100 )

Scott Base

60000 64400

58000 1965

1970

Canberra

1975 Hermanus

1980

1985

1990

Temp Anom

1995

2000

Canberra Prediction

2005

45

32000

C 25

45000 15 40000 5 35000

Total Field Strength F (nT)

50000

-5

30000

25000 1965

31000

35 Temperature Anomaly ( 0C x 100 )

Total Field Srength F (nT)

64200 1965

Hermanus Prediction

60000

55000

-60 2010

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

-10

2005

1970 Tsumeb

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Huancayo Temp Anom Huancayo Prediction

-20 2005 2010 Tsumeb Prediction 90

D

70

30000 50 29000 30 28000 10 27000

-10

26000

25000 1965

-15 2010

Temperature Anomaly ( 0C x 100 )

-40

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

-30 2010

Year

Year

Figure 10 Southern hemisphere zonal correlation plots. Total field F and temperature anomaly versus year. A- 90S-64S; B-64S-44S; C-44S-24S; D-24S-Equator.

© 2008 Daniel P. Johnston All Rights Reserved

11

0.2

58000

60000

50000

0 10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90 53000

53000

48000 -0.4 43000

Total Field F (nT)

Field Regression Slope

-0.2

Series1 Series2 Series3

-0.6

40000

48000 30000

20000 43000

10000

38000

38000

-0.8

0 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10

-1

33000

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

-10000

Latitude ( 0 )

33000

Latitude ( 0 )

Figure11 Plots of total field F slope and intercept vs latitude 1970-2007. Table 2 Regression Slope, Intercept and Statistical Parameters for temperature anomaly vs total field F Zone

Station

64N-90N

CCS Thule Meanook Newport Fredericksburg Tucson San Juan M’Bour Huancayo Tsumeb Hermanus Canberra McQuarie Mirny Scott Base

44N-64N 24N-44N Eq-24N Eq-24S 24S-44S 44S-64S 64S-90S

Station Latitude 77° 43' 77° 28' 54° 37' 48° 16' 38° 12' 32° 15' 18° 6' 14° 24' -12° 3' -19° 12' -34° 25' -37° 32' -54° 30' -66° 33' -77° 51'

Slope

Intercept

R2

F

p

-0.20 -0.291 -0.067 -0.063 -0.026 -0.043 -0.018 -0.218 -0.034 -0.031 -0.007 -0.037 -0.026 0.005 0.004

11848.21 16501.71 4062.91 3663.57 1468.22 2156.63 755.21 7163.42 937.47 965.95 223.03 2213.70 1710.42 -291.28 -229.61

0.51 0.40 0.60 0.62 0.74 0.74 0.70 0.60 0.58 0.58 0.34 0.40 0.16 0.01 0.00

36.09 23.61 49.72 53.48 100.26 99.80 82.28 53.52 40.42 45.29 18.31 22.94 6.52 0.35 0.13

8.41E-07 2.45E-05 4.54E-08 2.15E-08 8.19E-12 8.7E-12 1.02E-10 1.5E-08 6E-07 1.15E-07 0.000138 3.03E-05 0.015292 0.56 0.72

Figure 11 and Table 2 show a similar analysis, as was done earlier against time, of the zonal temperature anomaly data analyzed against Total Field F for geomagnetic observatory stations at various latitudes. Again, there is a relatively uniform trend for stations in the northern hemisphere which falls off rapidly in the southern hemisphere. In other words, zonal temperature increases in the northern hemisphere correlate strongly against magnetic field decreases. One station, M’Bour, is the outlier in both graphs and was not included in the analysis. It happens to lie at the northern edge of the South Atlantic Anomaly which possibly explains its peculiar response and reinforces the enigmatic effect of a nonuniform field on latitudinal response. Although most of the southern hemisphere stations also show strong correlations, the relationship with latitude is less clear probably for the same reason as M’Bour. The regression curves used to fit the slope and intercept values for the various stations against latitude belong to an interesting family of curves known as saturation growth

© 2008 Daniel P. Johnston All Rights Reserved

12

Total Field F (nT)

0

Field Regression Intercept (nT)

-90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10

58000

Series1 Series2 Series3

curves. All station results except M’Bour were used in the analysis. The correlation coefficient for the slope (R2 = 0.86) indicates a systematic relationship. If there is a relationship between the slope obtained by linear regression analysis of the zonal temperature anomaly versus time over the period 1970-2007 and the zonal temperature anomaly versus Total Geomagnetic Field strength F this would indicate a potential causal relationship between the changing geomagnetic field strength and global warming. Such is the case, as Figure 12 below strongly indicates. Because the actual station latitudes do not correspond to the median zonal latitudes, the regression fit for the Total Field slopes versus latitude was used to interpolate slope data for the station locations. The results are 0.1

Slope Temperatue Anomaly Vs Total Field F

0 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

-0.1

Slopes -0.2

Total Field Slope=a*(b-exp(c*Temperature Anomaly Slope)) R2 - 0.998

Exponential Association Regression

-0.3

-0.4

-0.5 Slope Temperature Anomaly Vs Time

Figure 12 Plot of Total Field F slope Vs time slope versus zonal temperature anomaly

Table 3 Summary Data for Median Zonal Latitudes

Zone

Median Latitude (0)

Temperature Anomaly Slope

Total Field F Slope

Average Total Field F (nT)

Average Secular Variation (nT)

Average Temperature Anomaly (°C x 100)

90N-64N

77

5.10

-0.23084

56947

47.26

50.50

64N-44N

54

3.75

-0.05448

54490

1.75

49.42

44N-24N

34

2.77

-0.02175

45604

-12.35

33.58

24N-Eq

12

2.12

-0.00547

35730

-8.90

30.32

Eq-24S

-12

1.78

0.004169

34994

-6.20

26.53

24S-44S

-34

0.70

0.009693

39747

-21.75

17.97

44S-64S

-54

0.72

0.013237

46135

-44.28

26.63

64S-90S

-77

0.02

0.016255

54080

-57.56

33.05

© 2008 Daniel P. Johnston All Rights Reserved

13

shown in Table 3. The extremely strong connection between the slopes of these regression fits (R2 = 1 is perfect, R2 = 0.998, close enough) where the zonal temperature anomaly is on the Y axis and either the year or the Total Field Strength F on the X axis explains the excellent correlations for station data in Figures 10 and 11. The odds of the gradual decay of the geomagnetic field strength being coincidental have been reduced to such a degree that they become insignificant. The changing geomagnetic field has to be a major contributor to the current global warming. This raises the question of how this reduction, underway for the entire period we’ve been aware of its existence, could be affecting our climate. This is especially pertinent with regard to the relatively cool period known as the “Little Ice Age” when the dipole moment of the Earth’s geomagnetic field was also decreasing. The difference lies in the accelerated field decay which began sometime prior to 1937. Close scrutiny of chart A in Figure 10 reveals a shift in the total field strength F for the 64N-90N latitudinal zone stations shown from increasing to decreasing centered around 1978. A review of the literature concerning what may have caused this change revealed that a “geomagnetic jerk” occurred at this time. A geomagnetic jerk is mysterious phenomena related to the Earth’s core dynamics and is speculated to be caused by torsional oscillations of the Earth’s core with the jerk being a magnetic marker of the sudden acceleration of metallic fluid flow at the boundary of the outer core. Jerks were discovered by Courtillot et al in 1978 after one which occurred in 1969 showed up in the east component Y of magnetic observatory data. Subsequent analysis of geomagnetic observatory data revealed that jerks occurred in 1901, 1913, 1925, 1932, 1949, 1958, 1969, 1978, 1986, 1991 and 1999. Four of these geomagnetic jerks were of global reach (1969, 1978, 1991 and 1999) and three others were probably global (1901, 1913 and 1925) and the rest were localized event not affecting the entire Earth. It is intriguing that the global event of 1969 roughly corresponds to the onset of recent global warming and that the subsequent geomagnetic jerks of 1978, 1991 and 1999 all correspond to an ongoing warming process. What is even more remarkable is the fact that there is a response time lag effect apparent in the jerks which delays the expression of the jerk effects in the southern hemisphere for 4 to 6 years after it has manifested in the northern hemisphere. This could explain some of the discrepancies in the data, notably near the South Pole. Could it be that, in addition to anthropogenic-induced warming, these corerelated jerks are causing warming of the Earth’s surface? The first thing to look at with regard to this possibility is the dipole moment and how the acceleration in its decline that began sometime before 1937 corresponds to global temperature rise. Figure 12 shows this clearly with a cooling period evident in the gap between about 1940 and 1969 and a rapid acceleration of warming beginning just after the 1969 jerk and continuing unabated through the succeeding jerks. The blue lines added to the graph are linear fits for the intervals 1880-1900, 1900-1920, 1920-1940, 1940-1970 and 1970-2007. Though this, again, may be coincidence, the association is, indeed, striking.

© 2008 Daniel P. Johnston All Rights Reserved

14

Dipole

1950+

Geomagnetic Jerk

Temp Anom

Linear (Temp Anom)

Linear (Pre-1950)

8.5

80 Dipole = -0.0036*Year + 15.156 2 R = 0.999

60

Dipole Moment ( x 1015 T m3 )

8.3 40

8.1

20

0

7.9

-20 7.7 -40

Temp Anom = 0.6043*Year - 1173.5 2 R = 0.6512 7.5 1880

1890

1900

1910

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

-60 2010

Year

Figure 13 Dipole moment and global temperature anomaly compared to geomagnetic jerks.

In keeping with the comparison of dipole moment and warming on a global scale and individual station data on a zonal latitudinal level, Figure 14 presents essentially the same picture on a more localized scale as the secular variation of the Total Field plateaus in the gap between jerks with a decreasing field apparent on either side of the gap. Again, the blue lines added to the graph are linear fits for the intervals 1880-1900, 1900-1920, 19201940, 1940-1970 and 1970-2007. The ramifications of this indicate that somehow these jerks are triggering a warming of the Earth with the strong possibility that the warming will not continue but may subside or reverse with a lack of further jerks as occurred in the 1940’s. If this is truly the case, it offers some hope of the current global warming crisis moderating in the near future, as long as another geomagnetic jerk des not occur. There is also a distinct possibility that the current, extremely pessimistic models for future warming may not be accurate, as they assign all the responsibility for temperatures increasing to greenhouse gases. A combination approach involving both geomagnetic field influences and anthropogenic causes may provide a much more optimistic picture and give humanity a little breathing room to clean up its act without having to resort to draconic measures.

© 2008 Daniel P. Johnston All Rights Reserved

15

65000

150 Abincourt/Ottawa

Cheltenham/Fredericksburg

24N-44N

44N-64N

63000

61000 50 59000 0 57000

Temperature Anomaly ( 0C x 100)

Total Field Strength F (nT)

100

-50 55000

53000 -100 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Year

Figure 14 Total field strength F and zonal temperature anomaly compared to geomagnetic jerks.

Courtillot speculated that the geomagnetic jerks were affecting the decadal length of day variation of the Earth and actually noted a correlation between geomagnetic declination and global temperatures as expanded by Michelis in Geomagnetic jerks: observation and theoretical modeling (2005). This figure is reproduced as Figure 14 below. Though the length of day variation may not be sufficient to explain a magnetic field forcing of global temperatures, it does fall directly in line with all of the above discussion. It does not take a great leap of faith to think that something as critically fundamental to the complex energy balance of the Earth as the core could influence surface temperatures when it hiccups. If nothing else, a weakening magnetic field could allow the deeper penetration of radiation from cosmic rays and the solar wind, if not actually allowing more direct solar irradiance. Speaking of changes, the Earth is in the throes of one of the most profound geomagnetic field changes that can occur. Every so often, geologically speaking, the Earth’s magnetic poles flip in what is known as a magnetic reversal. The last one, called the Brunhes-Matuyama Reversal, occurred about 780,000 years ago based on extensive geochronological dating of lavas and sediments. Needless to say, humanity has never experienced this event before and can only speculate on how it might go down.

© 2008 Daniel P. Johnston All Rights Reserved

16

Figure 15 Secular variation of the geomagnetic declination for CLF observatory (*); excess length of the day (o); global temperature (◊).

Numerous geophysicists speculate that we are a geological blink away from the next reversal which could occur within the next few thousand years or tomorrow, for all we know. The sun, which is also a dipole due to the currents generated by its plasma, reverses poles every 11 years, on average, and the overall 22 year cycle of solar activity is just a combination of these two dipole subcycles. Many have speculated that these geomagnetic reversals mark the onset of another Ice Age and, if that is truly the case, the current global warming problem could become a global cooling one in the not to distant future. Be that as it may, the proxy temperature evidence from ocean sediment cores such as GIK 16415-1, obtained in the Atlantic about 100 north of the equator (Pflaumann, 1986), and ODP820, from the Coral Sea about 160 south of the equator (Lawrence, 2005), suggests strongly that this same warming effect prior to the occurrence of a reversal may have happened before. The data was obtained from the World Data Center for Paleoclimatology website at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/data.html . Planktonic foraminifera are used to estimate temperature based on the ratio of O18 to O16 in their shells which varies with temperature. The sediment from which the foraminifera were extracted is dated and the combination yields a temperature- time curve going back as far as the Brunhes event. Figure 15 illustrates the results and shows a sharp temperature increase just before the reversal in both cores followed by extreme cooling beginning within a few thousand years, possibly very similar to our current situation.

© 2008 Daniel P. Johnston All Rights Reserved

17

Atlantic Summer

Atlantic Winter

Brunhes/Matuyama

32

28.4

30

28.2

28

0

Foraminifera Temperature ( C )

Coral

28

26

27.8

24 27.6 22 27.4 20 27.2

18

27

16

26.8

14 12 0

200

400

600

800

26.6 1000

Age (ka)

Figure 16 Plot of proxy ocean temperatures versus age from ocean sediment cores

This warming event just prior to the Brunhes reversal is further supported by evidence from a paper Paleomagnetic records of the Brunhes/Matuyama polarity transition from ODP Leg 124 (Celebes and Sulu seas) (Oda et al, 2000). Figure 16 is taken from that paper and shows the O18 distribution for hole 769A with the equivalent temperatures in 0 C shown as labels. Clearly the temperature dropped off from a higher level as the transition approached (the transition period lasted in excess of 4000 years) just as may be happening in the not too distant future. I am a chemist by training and a Transportation Research Engineer by title, so what gives me the right to venture into an arena where I really don’t know enough to even be dangerous? The answer is simply that I have dealt with real world data for 30 years and honed what skills I possess into the ability to look at data and derive the best understanding possible from it. I went into this adventure with the idea of seeing for myself whether the anthropogenic position was the only credible explanation based on the available evidence. I still must admit to a strong relationship between atmospheric CO2 and global warming since 1970 but feel, based on the above, that it is only one potential contributor to global warming and that the changing geomagnetic field is another major player in what has occurred during this same period. I find this, overall, somewhat reassuring since, to me, it offers some hope with regard to the future unlike the gloom and doom prognostications being promulgated based on the increasing CO2 models. Though there is little mankind can do about the Earth’s geomagnetic field and any effects due to its changes, we can and should factor it into any future scenarios with regard to where the world’s climate is going. © 2008 Daniel P. Johnston All Rights Reserved

18

Figure 17 Oxygen isotope record for hole 769A and determination of age.

© 2008 Daniel P. Johnston All Rights Reserved

19

There is a pressing need to begin a concerted effort to take the data we already have, collect the necessary additional data we need and figure out the implications of future climate change with as clear and full an understanding of what factors are behind it as is humanly possible so that we can make the right decisions and develop the correct strategies to deal with what is coming most effectively. With the future of humanity at stake and all the other pressing problems of our world, allowing agendas and media science to drive the future is misguided and immoral. As the grandfather of three small boys, I feel a compelling need to try and draw attention to what I consider to be a grievous error on our part where we let understanding wilt under the unrelenting glare of well-meaning ignorance.

© 2008 Daniel P. Johnston All Rights Reserved

20