GW and the decline of the Earth's magnetic field

[jethro]

Morning all, I trust you all had a great weekend?

Not sure if this is the right place to post this link but as this seems to be the busiest thread at the moment, it seemed the sensible place to glean the most opinions.

I think from reading the threads, the general consensus is the climate is changing, yes it's warmed recently, possibly greater than can be explained by our current understanding of natural forces but many, including myself are yet to be convinced it's all down to AGW. With this in mind I tend to look for other possible natural causes which may have contributed-note NOT caused all the warming but partly explain it.

According to the scientists, the Sun has been particularly active in recent cycles and is set to be even more active during the next one before declining after that. It's a known fact that our magnetic field protects us from Cosmic Rays and it is argued that the variance in Solar Flux has little impact upon earth temperatures because of this. Also according to the scientists, our magnetic field has been in decline since at least 1845, the decline growing more pronounced and rapid in recent times. Could this together with the increased Solar output account, for at least part of the perceived recent rise of temperature?

http://www.energybulletin.net/1045.html

[jethro]

The mods have kindly opened this as a separate thread

Please give any input you can think of, even if it's blowing this to bits; my understanding of this is very basic and I'm hoping to learn.

The germ of the idea that this may be contributing in some way to the elevated levels of Co2 and climate change is this: Solar output has been increasing whilst our Magnetic Field has been decreasing, could the two together mar our understanding of the increased levels of Co2 in the atmosphere?

More Solar output=more Cosmic Rays

Cosmic Rays react in the atmosphere and create Co2

Weaker Magnetic Field=greater levels of Cosmic Rays entering our atmosphere, hence more Co2.

Any thoughts?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14

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

[parmenides3]

A starting point, then, jethro: first, you need to distinguish between Galactic Cosmic Rays, which do not come from the Sun, and Solar irradiance, or Solar 'output'.

You'll need to find a measure of C14-isotope CO2 in the atmosphere, preferably with a timeline of several decades. Then, we'll need a timeline of Magnetospheric strength, then a timeline for GCR input. We may as well throw in other Solar output, just in case we find an unexpected link.

Once you have all that, you'll have to isolate the main sources of C14; ocean-originated, Solar-induced, and GCR-induced.

Then, it should be a straightforward process of comparing the different numbers with the temperature record, to see if there is any kind of correlation.

I suspect you may come across several difficulties, though: We threw a lot of C14 into the atmosphere during Nuclear tests from the 1950's onward; this may well mask, or even overwhelm, the signals from other sources.

I also believe that direct measurements of GCRs stopped around 1980 (which is why Svensmark's graph doesn't extend beyond this date).

It may still be possible to extrapolate from the data when cross-referenced to make reasonable inferences about the relevant numbers; I don't know.

I think that if you can show any increase in C14 in the 20th Century, then you might be justified in pursuing this avenue. Without it, I don't think you'll even have a starting point.

let us know what you find.

:)P

[Hiya]

Cosmic Rays react in the atmosphere and create Co2

Weaker Magnetic Field=greater levels of Cosmic Rays entering our atmosphere, hence more Co2.

This is the second time you've posted this, and as far as I'm aware this is not true. Do you have a source for it or did you infer it yourself from the wiki articles?

[jethro]

This is the second time you've posted this, and as far as I'm aware this is not true. Do you have a source for it or did you infer it yourself from the wiki articles?

This was posted a second time because the mods decided this, possibly total balderdash from my addled mind was worth further investigation.

This is the busiest time of year for me and since the Sun has come out, my working world has gone mad so I apologise now if info from me, posted about this is sporadic. I've had a little time this morning to trawl the net and have come up with a few things. It appears I'm not the only one to think there may be a connection, both to our climate and the Solar cycle/magnetic field. I won't pretend to even begin to understand all the science, so if anyone out there does, feel free to contribute. I've posted a few links so you can judge for yourselves.

http://www.liv.ac.uk/earth/PG/projects/Holme2.htm

http://spectrum.ieee.org/nov06/4708

http://www.ausetute.com.au/carbon14.html

http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/geomag/field/sec_e.php

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/seg/geomag/servers.shtml

http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PD...I..76..957D.pdf

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi...6X.2000.00208.x

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000GeoJI.143..545D

[parmenides3]

I'll challenge anyone to find a more recent or more thorough discussion of this subject than this one, published in 2006.

Sorry, it's another large pdf. It's also in Dutch and English. The English executive summary begins on page 27, and the conclusions on page 35 (might save you a bit of time).

There is no doubt that this summary of the science to date leaves some questions open, but what it does do is explain why the assessment of solar forcing has been set at it's current value. I'm really pleased about finding this one.

:)P

Ah: slight problem; the pdf is too large to load. I'll have to ask you to google 'Scientific Assessment of Solar Induced Climate Change'. Sorry. It's the Netherlands document, if you have any doubt. On my search it came up second on the list.

:(P

Edited March 13, 2007 by parmenides3

[parmenides3]

Link to pdf here: http://www.mnp.nl/en/publications/2006/Sci...mateChange.html

:)P

[eddie]

Thanks for the link P3. A very interesting read.

The report does give a very good account of current thinking on solar varition but, as you say, it also highlights there are still a lot of uncertainties. It mentions there are consenting views among climatologists with respect to how much solar activity affects climate and also that very little work has been done trying to work out non linear reponses to solar forcing. It seems to me there is still a long way to go to understand the impact of the sun on past and future climate.

Unfortunately non linear responses to solar forcing are still a largely barren field, despite the

fact that major global climate configurations (e.g. the ENSO and AO) follow non-linear

dynamics.

The report also highlights this but doesnt speculate what impact it may have on climate.....

Never during the past ten thousand years has the Sun been as active in ejecting magnetised

plasma as during the last half a century, in which period it remained fairly constant.

Estimates suggest that the level of solar activity may recently have passed its maximum and

that it may decrease in coming decades.

Possibly a link between cold periods and solar minima...

A clear link is present at the level of individual (Spörer and Maunder-type) minima in solar

activity and climate throughout the Holocene. In the North Atlantic the solar minima are

associated with southward advances of sea-ice whereas in Western Europe climate turns

cool and wet. It must be noted that there is no unequivocal link, climatic events occur without

corresponding solar forcing and vice versa, some minima in solar activity do not seem to

have a corresponding climatic anomaly.

However, no clear link between cosmic rays and cloud formation.....

The global average temperature response due to TSI changes, related to the 11-year solar

cycle, is small, less than 0.05 degrees, hence hardly visible in the temperature record. On

the regional scale, the impact of the 11-year solar cycle tends to be larger, in the order of a

few tenth of a degree. Also, changes in the ozone concentration and subsequent differential

heating of the stratosphere due to UV variations influence the lower atmosphere from above

via a chain of dynamical interactions. Some of the observed changes can be attributed to the

solar UV variability. For the cosmic ray – cloud link no clear physical framework exists

neither do observations support the occurrence of this mechanism.

Edited March 13, 2007 by eddie

[parmenides3]

Eddie: you have done an excellent job of summarising some of the key points; better than I could have done. It's nice that someone has found the link useful.

I feel it is important to point out here that the report, comprehensive as it is, shows where there are important gaps in scientific understanding, and that C-Bob (& others) have a point when they say that Solar forcing, as well as other forcings might be underestimated. I believe Judith Lean has done some interesting work on this recently.

What the report does explain, though, is how the IPCC comes to its current figure for Solar forcing. Remembering that it places much more emphasis on what is known than what is only speculated, the current level of understanding supports the current conclusion. It also serves as more evidence that the cosmic ray idea is not yet at the stage of being sufficiently strong to be considered as evidence (personally, I think it is unlikely to figure highly in the future, either).

For you, jethro, if this is where your interest lies, the bibliography will have to be your starting point. It will be interesting to see how this line of enquiry progresses. If I spot anything interesting in the journals, I'll add I to the thread.

:)P

[jethro]

For you, jethro, if this is where your interest lies, the bibliography will have to be your starting point. It will be interesting to see how this line of enquiry progresses. If I spot anything interesting in the journals, I'll add I to the thread.

:)P

Thanks P3, I haven't as yet had a chance to read it, I'll get back to you when I have. I think maybe I should have started this just after crimbo when I had more time. Progress will I fear, be slow.

Dawn

[Gray-Wolf]

Maybe ,with a 'weakening' Magnetic field here on earth and the most 'vigorous' of the 24 cycle solar cycle about to start, we will be in a position to measure the 'tweaks' that the solar variabilty puts into global climate. Lets not forget that ,in 2012, we are also expecting a magnetic reversal of the solar poles so we can also see how that pans out in it's interactions with our own magnetic field.

[jethro]

Morning folks, sorry for being so slack in adding more info.

P3, I've now had a chance to read through your linked report; comprehensive stuff!

From page 30...

"The production of cosmogenic radionuclide Be10 and Carbon 14 can be influenced by geomagnectic field fluctations. These fluctuations are caused interactions between the Earth's mantle and core. Accurate assessment of changes in the geomagnectic field is thus of direct importance for understanding solar variability. Reconstructing geomagnective activity, however is a difficult task and unfortunately, already small changes in the long term trend substantially influence the amplitude and sign of the reconstructed solar activity changes. On the smaller scales, changes in the geomagnetic field are even less well defined."

So, my question of whether or not the declining magnectic field had any impact on Carbon 14 levels, appears to be yes.

From page 131.....

"By emitting magnatised plasma, the Sun influences the Earth's atmosphere indirectly by heliospheric modulation of the component of the galactic cosmic radiation. The amplitudes of the CR variations depend on those of the Solar Cycle. The cosmogenic radionuclides are proxies for this influence. Never during the past 10,000 years has the Sun been as active in ejecting magnetised plasma as during the last half century, in which period it remained fairly constant. Estimates suggest that the level of solar activity may recently have passed it's maximum and that it may decrease in coming decades."

The theory therefore should be that the relatively recent decline in Earth's magnectic filed and the increased solar output, should lead to greater levels of Carbon 14 in the atmosphere.

My original question was whether or not Carbon 14 levels had increased and if so, had this increase been considered when calculating the increase of Co2. Research upon C14 is very thin on the ground, most of it relating to Carbon Dating but from what I've managed to find so far, it would appear that yes, it has been taken into consideration so no, it would not in any way negate the figures for Co2 levels.

However; as this had been my starting point I assumed, wrongly, that carbon is carbon when it comes to acting as a GHG and warming the atmosphere.

Carbon 14 is used to calculate the age of antiquities as it has a known, stable, degeneration. It was one of the measurements taken from the Ice Core samples and scientists have comprehensive tables of measurements going back thousands of years. More recent, reliable data for atmospheric measurements is however, harder to come by since the nuclear testing threw large, but unknown quantified amounts into the atmosphere.

Using the data from the Ice Cores is considered to be valid and the resounding picture is that high levels of C14 coincide with COOLING not warming as I'd assumed. The Wolf, Sporer and Maunder minimums all have high levels of C14.

The temperature charts of the 20th century show an increase in the earlier part of the century, followed by a decrease; if memory serves me correctly, in the 60's/70's? This always seems to be explained as an anomoly caused by decreased solar activity; a perfectly reasonable explaination to me. But, and this has me puzzled as it has made me question my belief that a lot of the recent warming is down to natural causes, most likely solar in origin. What if the dip in temperatures was caused artificially by the sudden, large influx of C14 into the atmosphere by nuclear bomb testing? We know levels rocketed at that time, we know why and how - we did it. We also know from the Ice Cores that high levels of C14 go hand in hand with cooling periods. What happens to mine and other's theories if that anomaly in the 60'/70's is accounted for and the true picture is one of unrelenting warming since the mid 1850's (?).

Another question I now have is; levels of C14 have been climbing due to the reduction in the Earth's magnetic field and the increased Solar activity. So, theoretically we should be cooling, some scientists say the globe HAS been cooling since about 1996 (?). The Sun is forecast to become much, much quieter after the next Solar max due in roughly 2013. So, taking a combination of these two factors, does this mean we are entering a period of declining temperatures? Is there an inherent system of feedback whereby the Sun's activities increase the levels of C14 until such a level is reached that a cooling response is made? If so, how? Favoured theory seems to be by increasing cloudiness but there appears to be much uncertainty there at the moment.

Round and round and round we go.

More research is planned into the reduction of the Earth's magnetic field and it's impact upon our atmosphere but until such information is available, it's hard to draw a true picture. What I've learned so far has certainly made me question my understanding of AGW/GW. I would be intersted to hear the opinions of others on this forum who have much greater knowledge of the working of the Solar cycle.

Yours,

very confused.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ndp057/ndp057.htm

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2wee.../20060920_13.ht

http://www.radiocarbon.org/IntCal04.htm

[Hiya]

Is there an inherent system of feedback whereby the Sun's activities increase the levels of C14 until such a level is reached that a cooling response is made? If so, how? Favoured theory seems to be by increasing cloudiness but there appears to be much uncertainty there at the moment.

Good research, good read, well done.

Thats an interesting point above. I'll offer you an explanation.

Carbon-14 is made from nitrogen, which is a gas, therefore can float around anywhere in the atmosphere. When the nitrogen nucleus is struck by a neutron, you get carbon-14. I would imagine that the carbon-14 is going to preferentually bond with other carbon atoms, and hydrogen, giving rise to solid carbon particles (graphite) and polyaromatics. Both of which (I think) would seed clouds. They would also have an unknown effect on incoming and outgoing EM radiation.

[jethro]

Hello Folks,

I haven't looked at this for a while but I had a bit of spare time this morning so thought I'd explore this further.

I've found some really interesting stuff which appears to draw a correlation between our magnetic field and climate change. There is strong evidence to suggest that historically, a strong magnetic field corresponds with a cooler climate; it would therefore follow that a weaker magnetic field could correspond with a warmer climate? The magnetic field has been decreasing rapidly in recent years. Also, the magnectic field goes through rapid changes known as "Jerks", research into a correlation between these events and climate change is on-going but it would appear there is a link between these and temperature variation, albeit not entirely understood.

The movement or wander of magnetic north has me puzzled too, it's movement is increasing rapidly, could this in anyway be linked to climate change or more pertinently Ice Loss? Is there a correlation between it's position and movement, and variations in ice? Anyone know where I can find information/graphs plotting ice changes for the last 150 years or so?

I'd appreciate any thoughts on the above, even ones which call me a complete numpty.

http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/geomag/nmp/long_mvt_nmp_e.php

http://www.jyi.org/news/nb.php?id=641

http://www.tgo.uit.no/articl/roadto.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2889127.stm

http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PD...I..76..957D.pdf

http://www.springerlink.com/content/un90815853p05206/

http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/geomag/nmp/long_mvt_nmp2_e.php

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005AGUFMGP24A..07G

One of those likns doesn't work...I'll try again

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=A...bc67dad5bf0f03c

Edited July 16, 2007 by jethro

[Gray-Wolf]

The other thing that troubles me about a 'weakening magnetic field' and the promised 'vigorous' cycle 24 is the lessening of the protection offered by the magnetosphere during solar storms.

Does anyone know what the radioactive load could be in such circumstances?

We all know the problems the southern hemisphere has faced due to Ozone depletion (increases in skin cancers and a lessening of the bodies immune system) and that astronauts are in grave danger if their craft is hit by solar flares so what of us if our 'shielding' is lessened as activity from the Sun increases?

[jethro]

I've been meaning to update this for a while, found some interesting stuff.

The magnetic field had been fairly constant and stable for about 400 years up until about 50 years ago, since then it has been migrating and weakening; can't help but wonder if this has any connection to the increase in temps over a similar period. What impact, if any, would a wandering magnetic north pole have on the position of the Polar Vortex? Also new studies have found that far from protecting us from the Sun, the magnetic field is full of holes which allow vast quantities of Solar power through into our atmosphere. The study of the influence of Solar causes of climate change focus on irradience and flux, as far as I know, none incorporate this knowledge but to my way of thinking, a leaky magnetic field letting through huge amounts of energy has to have some impact. Perhaps this is another piece of the puzzle?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/...51209113513.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/...31205052200.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/...61003191203.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/...40817081623.htm

[Chris Knight]

Much more disturbing than climate change due to Anthropogenic CO2 production is the diminution of the Earth's magnetic field due to Anthropogenic magnetic pollution. Every line of magnetic force attempts to connect to the line of magnetic force issuing from a nearby opposite magnetic pole.

The surface of the earth, on and beneath the oceans, our atmosphere, nearby space and even beyond the limits of our recognised solar system now contains Anthropogenic magnetic bodies, from those feeble ceramic affairs in the Voyager spacecraft to those in the earpieces of our MP3 players. Not only our powerful Neodymium alloy magnets present in amazing numbers (how many can you count in your PC? -I bet you underestimate by at least 50%!) in each and every computer looking at this webpage, and all those networked in between. Add to this the magnetic fields generated by every appliance, circuit and installation, every vehicle, ship, aircraft and satellite, and you can see that there are spurious magnetic fields, stationary, oscillating, in motion, in random and fixed paths at all times in greater or lesser concentrations all over our space, and these fields all link together.

The field of the earth is quite weak, compared to some of the fields produced in the NMR machinery in hospitals, in particle accelerators, in waste reclaimation tips, or in the speaker systems of some rock groups. It is no wonder that the resultant magnetic field of the earth is weakening with ever increasing rate, since we treat these "harmless" but powerful lumps of stored energy with such contempt - I found a cast-away remnant of an ear-bud in the street today, looks like a minute flying saucer - but within it contains a small toroidal aluminium alloy magnet, which will continue attracting other magnets until time and decay reduces it to dust, in fifty years or so.

Once the Earth's natural field is completely swamped by Anthropogenic magnetism, and I expect the new magnetic poles to centre over China and the USA for a while due to the fact that China will be the major producer, and The USA to be the major consumer of electrical goods - I may be wrong - The USA may be totally bankrupt soon - and that all the (stuff that contains) magnets will actually self-organize into un-stickable polarized structures (a bit like Transformers, the toy kind, not the Westinghouse kind). Eventually Earth will begin to attract iron-nickel meteorites of ever increasing size from the asteroid belt, and they will also attract us, shifting our orbit further away from the sun, and exposing us to increasingly menacing mass extinction events.

What can we do to prevent this tragedy, apart from responsible recycling so that any waste magnetised material is either destroyed by heating it above its Curie point, or reducing all such material to such a size that the constituent magnetic domains are totally disrupted (with consideration of the increased carbon footprint of either operation), or do we learn to live without magnets?

Can anyone help? I can't find the tongue-in-cheek icon.

Edited September 13, 2007 by Chris Knight

[Gray-Wolf]

After my first encounter with 'The old straight track' I read around the Ley Line subject. One body of 'experts' suggested that the disruption of the landscape in modern times effectively smashed the connections between 'Leys' (if you think of a light source bounced between mirrors to set up a system of 'lines' and then add a few mirrors in strategic places you will mess up the old system of line's producing new ones). The disruption led to 'black leys' becoming more widespread across the landscape (as many of these had been 'disabled' in ancient times by Quartz dressing).

I could see how sections of the earths magnetic field may have it's 'entrance route' into the crust altered by the presence of electric pylons, sub stations and power stations. If I can accept that on the 'macro scale' then why not for every E.M.F. we produce?

A subtle force over a long time will result in the same effect as a stronger one over a shorter time. Maybe the use of E.MF.'s to induce magnetic alignments and 'make' new magnets will have an overall effect over time

[Chris Knight]

When we do eventually get a polar reversal, assuming one arrives before the we are all steamed to death like Dim-sums, will Northerners become Southerners and vice versa? Will we have to ditch all our GPS kit, compasses and maps, and will East stay East and the same for West? Will the Aurorae have to swap names since all the solar wind we used to get in the north will be switched down south (or up north as we shall have to get used to saying)? It all sounds a bit like the fabled "Millennium Bug", to me - where everybody raved on about disaster, and nothing really happened.

I am going to cash in on this and I suggest you do the same - buy up all the cans of red and blue paint you can find - trust me.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

A quick couple of points. Jethro, as the solar magnetic field weakens this will allow more cosmic flux to enter the Earths atmosphere, I think you had it the other way round. It is thought in turn that more cosmetic flux entering will increase cloud cover hence increase reflection of solar radiation. In turn this could be amplified by a weaker solar output [Gleissberg minima...not the 11 year cycle but on Maunder, Dalton scale] could lead to cooling of mini ice age proportions. We don't have long to see if that theory holds out [first bottom 2032 and effects apparent well before then].

Knock on effect is the wandering NMP which has been moving 'relatively' quickly. Roger J Smith is worth speaking to on that he has made some very interesting posts regarding this and indeed the polar vortex positioning could well be directly connected.

Re magnetic reversal, I'm more concerned about a possible wobble of our axis.

BFTP

[laserguy]

You've mentioned a possible 'wobble of the Earth's axis' before,BFTP,but what makes you think this could actually happen? Would it be a sudden 'jolt' or something taking millenia ( discounting the Earth's natural precession?). Wow,a sudden 'shifting' of the poles would be truly mind-melting and would most likely finish us,and everything else off but short of a MASSIVE asteroid strike I can't think of anything that could cause that. Elaborate please, I'm fascinated! Or maybe I've not read you right?

[Gray-Wolf]

In his later years Einstein was interested in the possibility of the 'orange peel world' where the crust snaps free of the mantle and free floats leading to rapid 'relative ' movements of the position of continents across the globe! Somehow the chance of a rouge 'wobble', as you see in a coin spun on a table top, makes slightly more sense to me!

I thought the moon helped to iron out these 'wobbles' like our own resident gyroscope?

[laserguy]

In his later years Einstein was interested in the possibility of the 'orange peel world' where the crust snaps free of the mantle and free floats leading to rapid 'relative ' movements of the position of continents across the globe! Somehow the chance of a rouge 'wobble', as you see in a coin spun on a table top, makes slightly more sense to me!

I thought the moon helped to iron out these 'wobbles' like our own resident gyroscope?

Again,what event/force would make the Earth's crust 'snap free of the mantle'? Sounds as unlikely as a sudden physical pole shift! Of course the moon has a stabilising influence (if it suddenly vanished Earth would probably go flying off at a tangent and leave the solar system ),but isn't that just how things have 'settled down'? I mean, Mercury and Venus do alright without a 'stabilising' moon, and with the exception of Pluto and it's relatively massive moon Charon,all the other planet's moons are truly diminutive compared to their 'parents' and their sudden absense would have no effect on the rotational or orbital stability of their parent planet.

I'm not familiar with Einstein's 'orange peel world', but if the core of the Earth is largely molten iron ( and highly responsive to magnetism ) something would have to exert a huge force on it while the mantle/crust above carried on through momentum,no? I can't remember now,but I read somewhere a while back that the moon is either getting closer to or getting further away from Earth. All incredibly slowly of course but whatever way it's going the rate can only accelerate over time as Earth's gravitational pull is amplified or diminished due to changing proximity. Got to admit it's something I've never thought about much,but maybe the moon has a huge role in climate that has largely gone unrecognised?

[jethro]

One to watch, perhaps their research will provide another piece of the climate puzzle;

http://www.sciencecentric.com/news/07091401.htm

[Bobby]

Again,what event/force would make the Earth's crust 'snap free of the mantle'? Sounds as unlikely as a sudden physical pole shift! Of course the moon has a stabilising influence (if it suddenly vanished Earth would probably go flying off at a tangent and leave the solar system ),but isn't that just how things have 'settled down'? I mean, Mercury and Venus do alright without a 'stabilising' moon, and with the exception of Pluto and it's relatively massive moon Charon,all the other planet's moons are truly diminutive compared to their 'parents' and their sudden absense would have no effect on the rotational or orbital stability of their parent planet.

I'm not familiar with Einstein's 'orange peel world', but if the core of the Earth is largely molten iron ( and highly responsive to magnetism ) something would have to exert a huge force on it while the mantle/crust above carried on through momentum,no? I can't remember now,but I read somewhere a while back that the moon is either getting closer to or getting further away from Earth. All incredibly slowly of course but whatever way it's going the rate can only accelerate over time as Earth's gravitational pull is amplified or diminished due to changing proximity. Got to admit it's something I've never thought about much,but maybe the moon has a huge role in climate that has largely gone unrecognised?

No, the Earth wouldn't fly off out of the solar system if the moon went. All it would mean is that the Earth will wobble a lot and our climate and seasons would be all over the place. Antarctica could become a rain forest and the Amazon could be Arctic tundra. Then a few years later it could be the opposite. It would be almost impossible for civilization to exist.

True, some other planets get by "fine" without a large moon, but they don't have people trying to live on them. Mars wobbles, if I recall correclty the huge dust storms Mars gets are caused by these wobbles.

Yup, the moon is getting father and father away. A few billions years ago the Moon was about 15 times closer to us. I read that if it was this close now we would have tides of several hundred meters height. I'd imagine there wouldn't be any land on Earth at all if that were the case, as the huge tide going in and out would quickly erode away any land.

I did read that some scientists believe the Moon could be an influence on Earth quakes, it moving the oceans of magna beneath us just like our surface water oceans. Plausible I say. But, yes, the moon does affect our planet and our climate directly, but there's no evidence to suggest it's an active changing factor in our climate and weather now. It does have an affect, but the moon's gravity is almost constant and there's nothing to suggest it can change our day to day weather.