Saturday, 11 May 2024

The effect of the sun on climate: proper science!

WORK IN PROGRESS since Dec2022 - this will be continuously evolved and updated, with links added,
The  challenge of a post like this - large and getting larger - is to get anyone to read it thoroughly. So I will try taunts:
"You will need an IQ of over 130 to be able to read and digest this information..." and if you give up after reading this advisory, then you are likely to have an IQ of below 100. But you can still apply to be a contestant on Michael McIntyre's "Wheel" gameshow.....  

Updated 25JULY24  - a continuously developed blog - please comment via @wpoel on twitter.

Since I started writing this section, a star has been born in the shape of a climate science undergraduate called Chris Martz, who has reinvented climate debating as a martial art.  His weapon of choice is Twitter, so go and look him up you'll be impressed to see just how thorough he is when dismembering the wooly pseudos science that typifies the genre. The bodies are piling up in a most entertaining fashion. No prisoners are taken, and no quarter is given.

https://x.com/ChrisMartzWX/status/1815889192075026708

THE REAL REASON FOR CLIMATE CHANGE: Robin Monotti

https://twitter.com/robinmonotti/status/178932069375187355

The warming from the Sun is cyclical, it's NOT constant. The distance of where you are from the Sun is constantly changing because both the Earth's orbit around the Sun is irregular and the Sun itself wobbles due to the combined gravitational pull of all the planets together. Look at the Schwabe solar cycle of 11 years, the Jose solar cycle of solar Inertial Motion of 179 years, Eddy Solar Cycle of 1000 years, the Bray-Halstatt Cycles of 2300-2500 years, then look into the three Milankovitch Cycles.

Short to medium term climate change:

Solar Inertial Motion: the combined mass of the planets also moves the position of the Sun through their combined gravitational pull, meaning the Sun moves around following the ever moving barycentre of the Solar system rather than being in a fixed central point in the middle Solar System. That is the key thing to understand: the Sun is moving around, wobbling in spiral like motion as it travels, it is not stationary. Once you understand that all medium term climate change can be explained simply because of the Sun's changing distance from the Earth.

None of this has anything to do with humans. None of this has anything to do with CO2. The models of the Solar System you grew up believing as a child were gross over simplifications. They conditioned you to believe that the Solar system has a fixed Sun position with a regular Sun activity with regular orbits, of which the Earth is one. Yet that is not the reality: not only the earth both tilts and wobbles as it orbits, but the orbit is a changing ellipse not a perfect circle, meaning the distance from the Sun is not constant. These are the three Milankovitch cycles. Also other planets have irregular orbits.

The combined effect of all these irregular orbits together pulls the Sun off centre of the solar system into the barycentre. A wobbling Sun is the real reason for short to medium term climate change, and an irregular earth orbit, tilt and wobble is the reason for long term climate change.

And this is just the beginning of the story of irregularity in the Earth's orbit around the Sun, then there are cycles of Sun activity, making it stronger and weaker according to how close to the 11 year cycle of magnetic poles flip it is, next being in 2024, and how many Sun spots & Solar flares we are exposed to. 

Then you need to factor volcanic activity, the Hunga-Tonga Hunga underwater volcanic eruption of January 2022 increased the water vapour in the stratosphere by 10%, this in itself will cause considerable warming of the planet in most regions.

It's definitely not a simplistic neat black and white story of CO2, a minor greenhouse gas, as 95% of the earth's greenhouse gases are constituted by water vapour instead. 

Humans have no power to determine either the orbit of the Earth around the Sun or the Sun's internal & external activity, or the water vapour in the atmosphere.

Life adapts much more easily to higher temperatures and increases in CO2, particularly plants, vegetation, trees, plankton& phytoplankton, than it does to decreases in CO2.

The real danger is a decrease of CO2, and a decrease in temperature, not an increase in either.

Once again, we have been deceived by a systematically corrupt scientific funding system linked to oligarchs interests.

CO2 was always a control knob for economic prosperity, not climate.

01may24 update...
In a netshell...

It's been a year of solid activity as we would expect at solar max, and there have been a number of terrestrial geological events in the usual "thin crust" zones...  

The coincidence of a big solar flare and a tsunami in Japan is the latest "coincidence" that associates solar activity and earth's geology. There is more recent real evidence for this correlation than for anthropogenic climate change. The 2011 Tsunami that caused the Fukujima nuclear power disaster also occurred at solar max. But the Carbon cultists would prefer not to dwell on anything that reminds us that the sun is demonstrably more influential in the big issues of climate than those who cannot tax the sun want to admit.

The BBC did a decent job of covering the basics of the iron core a year ago: The way the Earth's core spins may be changing - BBC Newsround

And yesterday this happened MAJOR X-CLASS SOLAR FLARE: Mere hours after emerging over the sun's eastern limb on Dec. 31st  2022, big sunspot AR3536 erupted, producing a major X5-class solar flare. NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) recorded the extreme ultraviolet flash:https://spaceweather.com/archive.php?view=1&day=01&month=01&year=2024ew=1&day=01&month=01&year=2024



Updated 09Aug23

Various Odds and sods, and loose ends. Geomagnetic stats and comment.

Updated 08Aug23

X-class flares herald the Cycle 25 maximum alert.  
 
Earth is dodging some big solar storms. For the second time in 3 days, departing sunspot AR3386 unleashed a powerful X1-class solar flare. NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory recorded the extreme ultraviolet flash on Aug. 7th at ~2100 UT

This blog has always made the point that we simply do not know enough about the innermost functioning of the sun to provide foredcasts of flare events other than on the basis of "it's all been kicking off - so it's likely another bang will go off any minute..."  ... so not exactly precision forecasting, given its significance as the overwhelming source of heat energy in the solar system.

Lastest evolving update from an AI trawl:
"The influence of planetary gravity on the solar dynamo has been known for about 50 years. In 1972, a team of scientists led by Edward Parker [coincidental, but not related to the Parker of of Parker Pobe fame] proposed that the gravity of Jupiter and Saturn could play a role in the 11-year sunspot cycle. They argued that the gravitational pull of these two planets could cause the Sun's magnetic field to twist and distort, which could in turn lead to the formation of sunspots.

This hypothesis was further supported by observations in the 1980s. Scientists found that the number of sunspots tends to peak when Jupiter and Saturn are aligned in the same direction, and to trough when they are aligned in opposite directions. This suggests that the gravitational pull of these two planets is indeed having an impact on the Sun's magnetic field.

A more recent 2021 study looked into why explanations  and models in expert circles diverge widely as to why the magnetic field changes at all. Is the sun controlled externally or does the reason for the many cycles lie in special peculiarities of the solar dynamo itself? HZDR researcher Frank Stefani and his colleagues have been searching for answers for years—mainly to the question as to whether the planets play a role in solar activity. 

However, the exact mechanism by which planetary gravity affects the solar dynamo is still not fully understood. Some scientists believe that the gravitational pull of Jupiter and Saturn can cause the Sun's magnetic field to become more turbulent, which can in turn lead to the formation of sunspots. Others believe that the gravitational pull of these two planets can cause the Sun's magnetic field to become more aligned with the Sun's rotation, which can also lead to the formation of sunspots."

So the only prediction concerning any aspect of our sun that has any record of reliability is still the almost metronomic 22 year period of the activity cycle, derived from nothing more sophisticated than counting the visible sunspots. 

This latest research is another example of interesting revelations that climate scientists have been reluctant to accept into their modelling - probably because they simply do not understand it...

“The sun is more surprising than we knew,” said Mehr Un Nisa, a postdoctoral research associate at Michigan State University. “We thought we had this star figured out, but that’s not the case.”

Nisa, who will soon be joining MSU’s faculty, is the corresponding author of a new paper in the journal Physical Review Letters that details the discovery of the highest-energy light ever observed from the sun.

The international team behind the discovery also found that this type of light, known as gamma rays, is surprisingly bright. That is, there’s more of it than scientists had previously anticipated.

Updated 24Apr2023 ...

What drives the solar cycle?

This does! (https://phys.org/news/2015-03-solar.html)

Now, ponder for a moment:  the ease with which the hypothesis of climate change based on "carbon" has been established as a religious doctrine, complete with saints sinners and heretics - and the familiar excuses to curtail the use of free speech and open debate. "Carbon" is only a tiny part of the story of climate, but by allowing zealots to dictate the agenda, there is a severe danger that important other factors are being overlooked - or worse.

So at risk of excommunication we remind you that CO2 climate change remains an act of faith, and is not settled science. The observations are contradictory, and the propositon is at very best, a hypothesis. And just as religion refuses to be challenged to produce evidence of its Gods, we are told that we will all go to climate hell if we don't believe in Carbon and anthropogenic climate change. The unchallenged consequences of the zealots and their impositions of Marxist control ideas now include transport restrictions, ULEZ and ideas like 15 minute cities with the impositioons of tranport and paymetn m ethods that gives the state precise infroamtion on the movements and habits of all those with a smartphone.
 
You might suspect that all is not it seems when those defending their faith have to go to extremes to bully others around to their point of view.  You didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition, but you got it.



Climate has been a another testing ground for politicians and "deep state" researchers to explore how a scared and compliant population can be gaslit, and sold any number of dubious propositions. Pandemic anyone?

We really do need to look behind and deep into the nature of power and influence across politics and the media in the light of the staggering amount  "money" that has been conjured/printed since the 80s by a handful of governments, organisations and individuals. At the same time as traditional asset-backed currency and value has been forgotten. Gold ("Money", as JP Morgan perceptively put it) has appreciated some 95% against £/€/$ (which is "Credit") in 50 years. Credit is a monetray construct that requires - you guessed - an "act of faith" on the part of those using it. The phrase "I promise to pay the bearer XX on demand" is as empty as the bank vault that once held the gold that existed to back that promise.

Amongst the starkest evidence of something going seriously wrong with the way government operates, is that someone as apparently unsuitable and prone to gaffes that belie an alarming level of dysfunction and dementia as Joe Biden is President of the United States. Obviously money is involved, but who is pulling which strings? The vested intersts in a counrty like the United States involve trillions of dollars. There is enough csah involved that the most stalwart and trusted are going to be readily corruptible.

So who funds the eco movement that has indoctrinated the under 30s through our education system and the BBC?  Remember those images of polar bears drowning? Well there's been a polar bear population explosion in recent years, so in some parts of the Arctic you will be in more danger from being mauled by a marauding polar bear, than you are from climate change.

Another question to ask.. "what is the percentage of CO2 in  the atmosphere we are arguing about anyway?" Most people will suggest a figure well over 5%, many think 20%.

The answer is 0.04%, 400 parts per 1,000,000 and it is a vital part of the growth of all things green through the process of photosynthesis. CO2 is even introduced into greenhouses for this purpose. And as we know, the UK contributes just ~1% to the global total, anyway.

We have been gaslit for long enough! It's time for a blast of reality. Have you got the cojones?


Maybe we should be trying to help Gene Beards who runs this YouTube channel "socialize" his campaign to bring attention to a climate change proposition backed by real science. The migration of the magnetic pole - and possibility of a complete polar reversal - is real and measurable. And it has happened before in Earth's history.

The usual deep state CO2 lobbyists are aware of this, as it is undermines their narrative and so they try quite hard to dismiss it; they already know that they can promote the most astonishing pseudo-scientific nonsense and have it swallowed by the gullible. And for the less gullible - contemtplating resisting assimilation - remember what happened to the late Dr David Bellamy when he raised his voice in doubt?  He became victim to a crude Napoleonic cancellation gesture "pour encourager les autres"...

This real science is based on observed solar activity; it might seem obvious to anybody after a brief moment of thought that the biggest influence on climate throughout the whole of the solar system is the big round bright thing called the sun. It's been blasting out energy and particles for billions of years and it's what stripped the atmosphere from Mars to turn it from a potentially habitable planet with oceans, to the present arid desert.

The difference between Mars and Earth is there Mars did not have a magnetic field ("magnetosphere") to help shield it from these particles - but earth has a complex magnetic field structure thanks to its molten iron core.

Magnets have poles ... and in the case of Earth, the magnetic North pole has been used for navigation using compasses for centuries. The magnetic North pole is not the same as the "true" north, and the divergence between true and magnetic North varies over time. The mechanism is fascinating and not too hard for anyone with an inquiring scientific mind to grasp. Have a Google.

"True north is a fixed point on the globe. Magnetic north is quite different. Magnetic north is the direction that a compass needle points to as it aligns with the Earth's magnetic field. What is interesting is that the magnetic North Pole shifts and changes over time in response to changes in the Earth's magnetic core. "

The earth's molten iron core is the basis of the magnetic field that interacts with the sun's influence to create a shield that deflects damaging particles that would otherwise strip the atmosphere in the same way that Mars lost its atmosphere.

This process is most dramatically visible in the form of the aurora (which are centred at the north and south pole) where the magnetic field lines excite gases in the atmosphere to show those spectacular moving colours.

So why does the climate vary over time? The key factors are the variable nature of the orbit of earth around the sun which determines its distance from the sun,  and the activity of the "solar dynamo" that creates a magnetic field in conjunction with the earth's molten iron core, that shields the earth ...or not...

We have known for hundreds of years that there is an 11 year cycle involved in regulating the sun's activity levels - where this activity level is manifested in the number of sun spots visible on the solar disc. This can range from none -  for quite long periods of time - to to as many as 100 at peak solar activity.

We have also known that there have been earth climate events associated with this activity level - notably the little ice age of the middle ages, which occurred during a period of especially low sunspot activity. A "Grand Solar Minimum".

If you have been following so far, well done, but you'll be wondering why so little attention is being given to what is potentially the most influential effect on our climate while attention is focused on a hypothesis that has not been conclusively proven, and that is apparently more religion then science. Although God help anybody who dares to question the narrative, such are the vested interests now involved in trying to maintain carbon hysteria.

Maybe one explanation is that it is not possible for politicians to regulate or tax the sun?

Gene Beards deserves a wider  appreciation of his work, and hopefully somebody at GBN is going to be willing to go the extra mile to understand and work with him. He's not quite Dr Magnus Pike showman material, but with little work... ?

The speed at which the magnetic North pole is traversing is a very simple demonstration of a fundamental process taking place that could have a dramatic effect on climate in our life times. And it can be measured in real time.

There are people in governments who also understand this; which begins to explain some of the curious and contradictory behaviour going on in an effort to create misdirection. But the religious fervour that has been deployed to intimidate the heretics is such that hardly anybody dares question, for fear of being described as a conspiracy nutter. Sadly, Dr David Bellamy it's not around to ask.

The danger of being tagged as conspiracy theorists is obviously a challenge, but once you delve into the subject it's hard to explain the behaviour of governments and those many powerful influencers in the shadows, who seem to lurk just out of media attention while they pull the levers.

Astonishingly, the sun's 11 year activity cycle has only recently been explained by reference to planetary tidal influences acting on the solar dynamo. And this raises a further interesting possibility that maybe astrologers really have some scientific basis for their craft?

The clear and simple evidence that planets interact with the sun is simply that they exist in orbit, and have not spun off into deep space. Newtonian physics rules.

The question of how cosmic rays and magnetic storms can affect physiology as well as atmospheric effects like Jetstreams is it also important, given the obvious effects on animal and bird behaviour. Just as we know homing pigeons can lose their way during solar storms, there is some evidence that migraine sufferers respond to changes in magnetic field.

I realise all this is a lot to digest, but let's make the effort and take the opportunity to explore a possible climate misdirection conspiracy, and what is really going on. (We could start by giving Gene Beards of the "maverickstar reloaded" YouTube channel some media training, and having him explain in a series of interviews just how close we are getting to a full magnetic reversal.)

He may be at little excitable, but he is entitled to be frustrated, having seen the pseudoscience of "carbon" distracting the gullible for the past 10-years.

Don't forget, he has got real time evidence and scientific measurements to back his assertions. Various media encounters have revealed that JSO and  XR climate fanatics don't know about even the crude pseudo science they are using as an excuse to disrupt our lives.

Valentina Zharkova: “in next 30 years, global warming problem will be last thing in our mind”

This April 2023 item in the Daily Star (not a particularly noted scientific journal...) maybe slightly exaggerated, but considering the carbon lobby has been making grossly the exaggerated claims for years now...

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/world-news/massive-hole-sun-unleashes-18million-29584744

 https://youtu.be/LYOMKLDbeYE
 
Prof Valentina Zharkova is not much liked by the "carbon" climate lobbyists who refuse to believe that their CO2 centric view of climate change has been comprehensively questioned by serious scientists who do not glue themselves to roads; and one of the leading authorities is the Ukrainian-born prof.

Her assertion that the Modern Grand Solar Minimum will lead to terrestrial cooling caused the Net Zero and carbon fanatics to squawk, cancel and stick pins in her effigy - but still there is no hard proof that CO2 levels of 0.04% is more influential in climate change than the sun.
 
Her accent can be a little hard work to decipher, but stick with it if you seek enlightenment.

This post is not about climate change denial, but it seeks to add balance to the CO2 assertions, and explore the underlying reality that there are many more factors than man-made CO2, aka "carbon".
 
Valentina's website is a mine of heretical information...
 

So what if the "Carbon" lobby is wrong, and is spreading information (knowingly or otherwise) on behalf of those who stand to gain from a rise in the price of fossil fuels? 

Of course the climate is changing, it has changed for 4 billion years and there is no reason to think that it has stopped changing. But the influences are many and varied, and certainly not entirely down to carbon dioxide, contrary to the popular media bogey.

Carbon dioxide has provided politicians with a handy opportunity to raise taxes and create targets. They can't tax the sun or cosmic rays. But the collateral economic damage is now emerging - fast - and demands a full rethink of the entire narrative, and accept that many have been misled. And refocus on the need to develop renewable energy alternatives to avoid being cornered by despots. 

The fact that Donald Trump made this very point at the UN in 2018, and the German delegation openly laughed at him, is of course another contributory factor to the denial by an awkwardly bigoted "liberal" establishment that seems to rely on creating simplistic symbols as objects of derision and hate, in the traditions of the best Nazi propaganda.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2018/09/25/trump-accused-germany-becoming-totally-dependent-russian-energy-un-germans-just-smirked/

The current financial (lockdown repayment) crisis is due to energy cost inflation coupled to debt arising from pandemic spending. The debt is a done deal and fact, the energy crisis is a dynamic situation that can be adjusted.

If CO2 really was a thing, why is the UK, which is responsible for max 2% of global CO2 forcing itself into penury when China, the US and India are still contributing vastly more ..? It makes no sense.


The only rational conclusion is that we are being gaslit on a monumental scale. "Carbon" based anthropogenic climate change may be a smoke and mirrors hypothesis. It could be a manipulation of ambiguity, it is not proven and conclusive science. And it has been very cleverly used by Russia to corner gullible governments, who have been quick to make money from inventing taxes. The result is financial chaos and rampant inflation.

How do we get those who have bought the story and caused the current crisis to step back, rethink and re-evaluate ...and - crucially - admit they actually have no irrefutable evidence, and that they have been manipulated, groomed and browbeaten into admiring the climate change warriors' fine new clothes? Or face cancellation.

Most climate science is couched in vague speculation... It is almost as if those who find themselves in the spotlight of fervent media speculation are slightly nervous and hedging their bets....

This is from one of the better academic summaries of the popular hypothesis found at...
It is not definitive, but a useful expression of the currently orthodox view.

"CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere. 
Scientists say that if CO2 doubles, it could raise the average global temperature of the Earth between two and five degrees Celsius."
 
 ...and if the moon was made of cheese, it could solve world hunger...

The real issue for years has been one of energy security, namely being dependent on energy from unpredictable despotic regimes. Before the Russian contribution to the crisis, the oil producers of the Middle East have held the soft dangly parts of the Western economy in their grasp ...and occasionally squeezed to create an oil crisis and manipulate prices to maximize their income.

Let us not overlook the other ecology issues arising from refined oil production, especially that of waste  plastics in the oceans. This is not a by-product of energy, it is a simple case of wanton vandalism in the disposal of waste products. Most plastics could be traced to origin.

Meantime, Neil Oliver is well across the issues of elite gaslighting and always manages to impress. If a political party can manage to get his endorsement, his calm and consistent presentations could be pivotal in encouraging the green-washed hordes to accept that they have been fooled in this age of crazed hyperbole, misdirection, intolerance, ignorance and spiteful cancellation.

 The elite that has taken almost all the money is now after everything else as well

And keep an eye on the magnetic pole shift and possible flip, with the redoubtable passion of Gene "Cassandra" Beards who is also healthily sceptical of the gaslighters....

While Gene may seem a little excitable at times, keep in mind he discusses "real measured science", not the febrile speculations of teenagers and a PM's daffy wife who may have been over-impressed by paid Russian influencers...

(A new religious fervour? All religions must be, by definition, conspiracy theories anyway... 

And if you're still wondering, there's a new study suggesting that weather stats are whatever you want them to be.. 
 

 
In the last 710 years there has been no net warming in the Central Alps. Modern temperatures suggest a return to the values of the 14th and 15th centuries.  It would appear the temperature trend from the 1980s to 2010 period has been flat.
 
And finally, let's not lose sight of the overpopulation contribution to our damaged ecology... 200k more (nett) new mouths to feed, cloth and supply with energy, each and every day...
 
 

Further reading... 



This is a Work in progress...
at

No comments:

Post a Comment