Confirmed! – Geomagnetic reversals can trigger glaciation

Bomb-shell press release from Kobe University confirms what I’ve been saying for years, that geomagnetic reversals can trigger ice ages – perhaps almost instantaneously. I’m not sure that was the intent of the press release because it doesn’t actually use the words “ice age,” “trigger ” or “instantaneous,” but that’s my take on it. See if you agree.

With a title that belies its importance, “Winter monsoons became stronger during geomagnetic reversal,” the press release (see full release below) explains that galactic cosmic rays (high-energy particles from space) increased “dramatically” during the Matuyama–Brunhes magnetic reversal of 780,000 years ago. Such an increase (called the Svensmark Effect) could induce more low cloud formation and influence the Earth’s climate via the umbrella effect.

Credit: Kobe University

That increase in galactic cosmic rays came about, the press release explains, because the Earth’s magnetic-field strength plummeted to less than 25 percent of today’s. In-as-much as our magnetic field shields us from cosmic rays, and in-as-much as geomagnetic field strength is now declining rapidly ( 5 percent per decade ), and in-as-much as we may be headed for a reversal right now ( here ), this discovery concerns me ( and also here ).

As  I mentioned earlier, the press release doesn’t actually use the words “ice age.” What it does say, however, is that geomagnetic reversals correlate with sea-level changes.

What causes sea-level changes? Sea levels decline when water accumulates on land as ice, forming giant ice sheets sometimes more than a mile thick. Then, when the ice melts, sea levels rise once again. Changes in sea level therefore imply glaciation. (Sea levels stood at least 400 feet lower than today during the last period of increased glaciation.)

Just to be fair, even though the press release doesn’t mention it, the underlying paper does mention both glaciation and iceberg discharge. Kind of hard to get iceberg discharge unless there’s some glaciation going on.

As far as I’m concerned, this is enough by itself to show that geomagnetic reversals correlate with ice ages.

Even more worrisome to me

Even more worrisome to me, though, is the following statement almost buried toward the end of the press release: “Added to other phenomena during the geomagnetic reversal – evidence of an annual average temperature drop of 2-3 degrees Celsius.”

Let that sink in for a moment. An annual average temperature drop of 2-3 degrees Celsius.

Do they really mean that average temperature dropped by 2-3 C every single year? I’m not sure they do. I may be interpreting it incorrectly, but if that is indeed what they mean then we could be in for a very rough ride.

Many people think it takes hundreds, if not thousands of years to descend into an ice age. But as I warn in Not by Fire but by Ice, ice core studies show that our planet has sometimes switched from periods of warmth such today’s – such as today’s! – into full-fledged glaciation in less than 20 years.

If average temperature should begin falling by 2-3 C per year, we could descend into an ice age so rapidly that we’d have no time to prepare.

How rapidly?

Do the math. According to Google, the earth’s average temperature during an ice age is about 12 F colder than today. (I don’t think it gets that cold during an ice age, but it’s good enough for our purposes here. My research shows that the tropics and subtropics were only 4 degrees colder than today during the last major glaciation, while the equatorial rain-forest belt remained much the same as today. [Not by Fire but by Ice, last page of Chapter 11.])

Whatever the number, let’s allow even more leeway. Instead of calculating a drop of 2-3 C per year, let’s plug in a decline of “only” 1 degree Fahrenheit per year.

That would mean that our planet could plunge from today’s warmth into full-fledged glaciation in a mere 12 years.

Does anyone honestly think our civilization, any civilization, could survive such a catastrophe?

How about surviving without the benefit of (so-called) fossil fuels?


Here’s a link to the underlying paper:

And here’s the full press release:

Winter monsoons became stronger during geomagnetic reversal

Revealing the impact of cosmic rays on the Earth’s climate

Kobe University

New evidence suggests that high-energy particles from space known as galactic cosmic rays affect the Earth’s climate by increasing cloud cover, causing an “umbrella effect”.

When galactic cosmic rays increased during the Earth’s last geomagnetic reversal transition 780,000 years ago, the umbrella effect of low-cloud cover led to high atmospheric pressure in Siberia, causing the East Asian winter monsoon to become stronger. This is evidence that galactic cosmic rays influence changes in the Earth’s climate. The findings were made by a research team led by Professor Masayuki Hyodo (Research Center for Inland Seas, Kobe University) and published on June 28 in the online edition of Scientific Reports.

The Svensmark Effect is a hypothesis that galactic cosmic rays induce low cloud formation and influence the Earth’s climate. Tests based on recent meteorological observation data only show minute changes in the amounts of galactic cosmic rays and cloud cover, making it hard to prove this theory. However, during the last geomagnetic reversal transition, when the amount of galactic cosmic rays increased dramatically, there was also a large increase in cloud cover, so it should be possible to detect the impact of cosmic rays on climate at a higher sensitivity.

In the Chinese Loess Plateau, just south of the Gobi Desert near the border of Mongolia, dust has been transported for 2.6 million years to form loess layers – sediment created by the accumulation of wind-blown silt – that can reach up to 200 meters in thickness. If the wind gets stronger, the coarse particles are carried further, and larger amounts are transported. Focusing on this phenomenon, the research team proposed that winter monsoons became stronger under the umbrella effect of increased cloud cover during the geomagnetic reversal. They investigated changes in particle size and accumulation speed of loess layer dust in two Loess Plateau locations.

In both locations, for about 5000 years during the geomagnetic reversal 780,000 years ago, they discovered evidence of stronger winter monsoons: particles became coarser, and accumulation speeds were up to > 3 times faster. These strong winter monsoons coincide with the period during the geomagnetic reversal when the Earth’s magnetic strength fell to less than ¼, and galactic cosmic rays increased by over 50%. This suggests that the increase in cosmic rays was accompanied by an increase in low-cloud cover, the umbrella effect of the clouds cooled the continent, and Siberian high atmospheric pressure became stronger. Added to other phenomena during the geomagnetic reversal – evidence of an annual average temperature drop of 2-3 degrees Celsius, and an increase in annual temperature ranges from the sediment in Osaka Bay – this new discovery about winter monsoons provides further proof that the climate changes are caused by the cloud umbrella effect.

“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has discussed the impact of cloud cover on climate in their evaluations, but this phenomenon has never been considered in climate predictions due to the insufficient physical understanding of it”, comments Professor Hyodo. “This study provides an opportunity to rethink the impact of clouds on climate. When galactic cosmic rays increase, so do low clouds, and when cosmic rays decrease clouds do as well, so climate warming may be caused by an opposite-umbrella effect. The umbrella effect caused by galactic cosmic rays is important when thinking about current global warming as well as the warm period of the medieval era.”


explains the  damn near snap frozen large animals

38 thoughts on “Confirmed! – Geomagnetic reversals can trigger glaciation”

  1. I applaud your efforts, especially regarding the sun’s role in weather and climate change, but…

    [1] TSI-insolation drives climate change.

    [2] Cosmoclimatology/the Svensmark Effect is a spurious correlation.

    The ocean produces the clouds Svensmark claims for his cosmic ray theory, during increasing MEI/decreasing Central Pacific OLR conditions, as observed here using figure 10 from his latest paper.

    The strong OLR-cloud relationship is plotted here and here.

    Cosmic rays exhibit almost no correlation with ISCCP clouds

    Clouds (and CO2) are outcomes of solar cycle TSI variation.

    It’s no coincidence that cosmic rays and clouds follow the solar cycle, but to claim cosmic rays cause the clouds is a misattribution, just like attributing temperature rise to increasing CO2, wherein both theories implicitly ignore the primary role of the sun’s TSI in warming/cooling the ocean.

    It’s also no surprise people mis-attribute climate change to geomagnetism and cosmic rays instead of TSI, as they all are related to the sun’s magnetic field strength.

    • reckon theres a lot unexplained and some thats dissed shouldnt be
      read a report stating its accepted fact that heart attacks and other events are raised in times of high incoming solar emissions
      Cosmic rays can seed clouds, trigger lightning, and penetrate commercial airplanes. Furthermore, there are studies ( #1, #2, #3, #4) linking cosmic rays with cardiac arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death in the general population. Our latest measurements show that cosmic rays are intensifying, with an increase of more than 18% since 2015: ( this week) of interest to me as Ive had arrythmia issues and just had surgery last monday.

      and the huge volume of large quakes this last 3 weeks at a time when suns at lowest level and our planets mag field is low as well.
      weve just had 2 tiny cycle 25spots appear but not linger btw

    • The problem with TSI is that from 1945 to 1995 the TSI was increasing but the climate cooled for much of that period (1945-1980).
      To what do attribute that discrepancy?


      • Can’t draw any such conclusions as we don’t have cloud data before the 1980s, and peak and average TSI was higher in that period than during the many decades before 1945.

  2. You should also look at blocking conditions as a way of generating huge snow depths, albeit in very asymmetric ways geographically.

    Europe last winter had just such a block for two to three weeks from Christmas to mid January, generating huge snow depths over that period on the northern side of the Central and Eastern Alps..

    In other years the same amount of snow might fall, but with more even distribution on different wind directions and hence not seeming so extreme.

    • Rhys, I’ve often considered blocking conditions as key to the huge snow depths at higher latitudes necessary to weather the long summer insolation as firn and eventually, glaciers. I know of no research done on how glacial ice ages begin, only on how we’re cooking our planet. Blocking conditions with heavy amounts of frozen precipitation should absolutely be necessary to create an albedo feedback.

  3. I think they mean “temperature averaged over the whole year” drop of 2-3 C. Not that it dropped that much each year.

    Ambiguously worded whatever they meant.

  4. According to Patrick Moore, the current average world temperature is 14.5 deg C.

    According to this paleoclimate reconstruction, major ice age avg., temperature bottoms out at about 22 deg C.

    If temps can plummet 1-2 deg C per year, countries that have primarily “renewable” energy (wind and solar) won’t have time to adjust by rebuilding the coal and nuclear infrastructure they foolishly dismantled. If that’s not a recipe for disaster, I don’t know what is.

  5. Bob Weber, could you back up your ideas by explaining the localised catastrophic rain events if cosmic rays are not a factor.

    • But it does – if you include geomagnetic excursions. Those include the Gothenburg magnetic excursion/reversal of about 11,800 years ago, the Mono Lake excursion of 23,000 years ago, the Lake Mungo excursion of 33,500 years ago, the Laschamp excursion/reversal of 47,000 years ago and the Blake excursion/reversal of 115,000 years ago. I think many more excursions will eventually show up in the record.

    • There are different lines of dead corals crisscrossing the oceans. Corals live only at tropics, that mean some time in the past we had different poles location so we had different tropics directions. Polar reversal does not have to be total N-S it could be partial reversal or migration.

  6. I think the annual drop of 2-3°C is meant as a GMT—global mean temperature. The GMT is calculated over an annual basis, so as I understand the press release it means a global average temperature drop of 2-3°C is enough to trigger these events.

  7. In response to your (valid) question (Does anyone honestly think our civilization, any civilization, could survive such a catastrophe?) one civilization springs to mind: the Neanderthal, who survived 8 ice ages (Quanta). Their global population barely escaped the last Ice Age. Our technological savvy civilization would, however, not manage. We would hardly know how to make clothes, grow food or warm ourselves without retail stores and transport of energy.

    • If we lucky we’ll die like some dinosaurs with a big hamburger in our mouths. But most of the people may have the experience a slow cooling and live the famine and cataclysms that come with the cooling. So enjoy the show/ride.

  8. I am curious if the “Erratic motion of north magnetic pole [which] forces experts to update model that aids global navigation” (see Nature 20190109) is a related subject in this context.

  9. The issues I have with this study is the same as the issues I have with many – proxies are treated as factual data, and the whole tenor of the report takes on a sense of being absolute instead of a possibility of an explanation.

    There is no way of absolutely knowing whether or not there even was low level clouds 780,000 years – you can only guess that from proxies that are guesses in that there is no way of knowing if they would be produced the same way as little as a 1000 years ago, much less 780,000 years ago since it is being assumed the present conditions were also present at that time. This study is a “guess” at what might have been, not a statement of what it was like.

    I am not knocking “proxies” and studies based on them, I am merely stating that these studies need to be reported as what they are – guesses, not presented as if they demonstrate an actuality. Evidence says events happened, but proxies only say “this might be the reason.”

  10. Even IF Global Temps instantly plummeted by 12°F, Glaciation would require a longer window of time to reach known epic mile(s) thick levels.. Flora and Fauna aka FOOD would decline rapidly. Solar Irradiance Levels reaching Earth’s Surface can also be greatly impacted by extreme atmospheric blockage due to e.g., extreme volcanic activity..

    • No, not at all. The underlying paper mentions precession more than once. In my book “Not by Fire but by Ice” I link precession of the equinoxes to the Milankovitch cycle.

  11. Ice & clouds are just the thing to increase Albedo. Note all the occurrence of large hail drops this year. As the troposphere deflates, the temperature gradient becomes steeper. Imagine this on a larger scale with an entrenched meridional jet-stream flow and you can see how quickly a new glacial epoch can begin.

  12. it was happened in New Mexico, antartic ice, I think it’s more and more to come to everywhere, it’s a sign

  13. I wish we knew for sure if we were going to be flash frozen or not. Prepping for a mini ice age is hard work, and I’d way rather kick back with some good tunes and the scent of BBQ permeating the air.

    All of this uncertainty is getting on my last nerve!

  14. I would guess we as a species are going to find out who is right in the next decade or two. TSI, Cosmic rays, cloud albedo, Magnetic.Reversal and more… possibly a little of all of them together.

  15. I think that the article is saying that the average world temperature dropped by 2-3 deg C …total. Not 2-3 deg per year. Granted, even a 2-3 deg world average drop, which would be a lot more towards the mid and polar regions, since the equator didn’t cool significantly, would be enough to create miserable conditions and glaciation.

    • I believe you are correct, and that would have been more apparent had the comment I wrote been posted 3 days ago been posted in a timely manner.

  16. This is very interesting and alarming considering that the mainstream idiots calling themselves scientists have already declared climate science settled and etched in stone, as they have etched it. I am convinced that an ice age has a much higher probability of occurring than the earth melting in the next 12 years as some politicians have suggested. But until we have several hundreds of thousands of years of specific data, and not just 150 years worth or so, it’s pretty much guesswork.

  17. Robert. Is there a reason you aren’t approving my comments? This is the most recent…

    July 8, 2019 at 11:36 am | Reply

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    There were several quite a while ago, but none were offensive in any way, and I try to document what I say as best I can.

    If you don’t want to post them, I’ll stop wasting my time writing them.

    • Hi Yonason, Yes, I still welcome your comments. With that said, I must apologize to you and to many of my other readers. As you may or may not know, I recently moved from the Seattle area to Texas, and am still somewhat preoccupied with getting settled. Also, the house is 40 years old, so various things keep popping up that need repair. I hope to get back to approving comments in a more timely manner very soon.

  18. I think the press release talks of a total drop of 2-3 degrees which is paired to a more volatile character of the weather.

    The LIA is found to be similar for Europe: not a continous cold, but a more volatile weather pattern due to more blocking events.

    Europe has very mild winters but the right blocking pattern sets up a cold transport from Siberia ( which happened in the winters of 85-86, 86-87, 1996-1997 and in 2010)

    Add a few more of these frigid winters (for example let them occur every 5 years instead of every 11-12 years) and the mean 30 year temperature would immediately drop by 1-2 degrees.

    This is also what caused the warming in Europe: till 1996-97 i remember we had such harsh winters roughly every 9 years, now it increased to every 13 years.

    If this actual interval would swap from 13 years to every 4-5 years the mean temperature would immediately plummet with 2-3 degrees. Yet we would still have warm summers with similar heat waves.

    For example: in Belgium the year 1947 saw an all time record high with an all time record of 5 heatwaves, but it ended as an average year as jan-feb-march was also near record lowest. That greater discrepancy between summer and winter made it a near average year.

    To me that’s a good example of what to expect with a 2-3 degree average drop…

  19. After the reversal, can we say that the atmospheric jet streams in northern and southern hemisphere change its direction as well?

Comments are closed.