At http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/29/magnetism-and-weather-interconnect… … is a post by another retired scientist that has upset the Green Blob on a number of occasions, Tim Ball of Canada. He says that a couple of decades ago, in his prime, he had predicted water resources would become an issue, and magnetism in science would be another focus of interest – and this has come to pass. Both are emerging after a long period of being buried beneath the hype of global warming (aka climate change). The IPCC has marginalised research into these subjects, he claims, and the focus of the research has been on co2. However, IPCC climate scientists do recognise a role for ENSO events (El Nino etc) and accept they are caused by ocean current reversals. What they ignore is that ocean currents are reversed by the wind changing direction and make no attempt to understand why the wind might shift from east to west and then west to east (over the Pacific). Similarly, what causes the Jet Streams to shift from Zonal to Meriodonal Wave patterns is likewise not on the agenda of the IPCC – or is ditched before it can be published. In fact, most scientists seem to ignore the way wind might affect the atmosphere – and they have consistently ignored the solar wind as it strike the magnetosphere (and therefore the upper atmosphere). Henrique Svensmark and Nigel Calder, in 'The Chilling Stars' made use of variation in solar magnetism affecting low cloud cover and claimed this affected global temperatures.
Tim Ball then moves to the decline in Earth's magnetic field (without mentioning the wandering magnetic north point), saying the subject is being exploited by alarmists (the usual doom saying manner). It is a moot point how much science might know about magnetic fields and the possible affect they might have on the weather. Seems like Piers Corbyn's ideas are having an effect – and he is mentioned in the final paragraph.
The comments are also interesting – but there are a lot of them and too many for myself to scan let alone read properly. Luckily, the very first comment introduces the Electric Universe theory and it all starts from there. The mainstream guy is a solar scientist and his comments are interesting as he says thee is no significant or persistent electric field in plasma. One might say a plasma abhors electric fields and plasma goes out of its way to avoid them – which tends to rile a lot of the commenters. However, as a mainstream solar scientist he is a persistent fellow, and worth reading. He continues by saying that only by reducing the degree of ionisation of a gas to a weak value is there a possibility for electric field effects – presumably he is talking about lightning. He is actually quoting from Gene Parker. We know that a magnetic field connects the Earth to the Sun but does an electric current flow between them?