by J. Goslin in P. Gosselin, June 1, 2019 in NoTricksZone
Another new paper, which of course will be ignored by the government-funded IPCC because it contradicts claims CO2 drives climate, shows that natural factors dominated the earth’s climate variability.
A team of scientists led by Jerome Goslin have published a paper titled Decadal variability of north-eastern Atlantic storminess at the mid-Holocene: New inferences from a record of wind-blown sand, western Denmark in the journal Global and Planetary Change, suggesting climate variability is driven naturally.
Image: NASA, public domain
Climate change driven by solar and oceanic cycles
Not surprisingly, as evidenced by hundreds of other publications (which are entirely ignored by the IPCC), climate variability is indeed tied to solar activity and “internal atmospheric and oceanic modes”.
by A. Jacobs & A. Préat, May 20, 2019 in SSRN.Elsevier
The focus of this study is based on a detailed analysis of the hyperthermal events of the
Paleocene / Eocene limit of 56 Ma and the lower Eocene (for the 54-52 Ma interval, Figure 1).
This example will show that the Earth has experienced many times much higher temperatures
than today, with warmer, sometimes more acidic oceans and an atmosphere much richer in CO2
(or CH4) than the current one. Are these past events precursors of the current situation?
Keywords: global warming, climate change, Paleocene, Eocene, hyperthermal events
by Joe Bastardi, May 17, 2019 inThePatriotPost
Apparently, the new strategy to fight climate change is shock therapy. It’s like today’s environmental crusaders are channeling the Ramones song “Gimme Gimme Shock Treatment.” Here are some illustrations.
Shock treatment is for extreme measures. But take, for example, this Dr. Willie Soon plot of solar irradiance (a measure of solar energy) vs. water vapor:
Water vapor is the number-one greenhouse gas. So it’s no secret what temperatures do when water vapor increases.
by Prof. F. Vahrenholt and F. Bosse, May 7, 2019 in NoTricksZone
If we speak of an average of the last 23 cycles in the months of the minimum, our only significant energy source at the center of the solar system was below average active last month as well.
The sunspot number (SSN) was 9.1, which was thus only 42% of the average of the cycles for month no. 125. Some cycles (No. 21, 18, 16, 15, 8 ) were already completed in month no. 125.
Fig. 1: The monthly sunspot activity of the current solar cycle (SC 24) since December 2008 (red) compared to the mean value of all previously systematically observed cycles since the beginning of SC 1 in March 1755 (blue) and the very similar SC 5 (black).
Figure 1 clearly shows that the latest cycle was quite below-normal, especially at the beginning and after the second peak which had an SSN of over 140 towards the end. Since February 2014 (the maximum of the entire cycle 24 with SSN = 146 in cycle month 63), it only reached 2/3 of the average activity.
What are the effects? The total radiation (TSI for total solar irradiance) is only moderately influenced:
par Jean N., 4 mai 2019 in Science-Climat-Energie
Dans une récente publication de 2019, l’équipe russe de G.A. Zherebtsov présente un mécanisme permettant d’expliquer le réchauffement global. Ce mécanisme, basé sur une série d’observations, ne fait pas intervenir le taux de CO2 atmosphérique mais les rayons cosmiques solaires ainsi que le champ électromagnétique terrestre. Les chercheurs qui ont pensé à ce mécanisme (inconnu du GIEC) font tous partie de l’institut de Physique Terrestre et Solaire de la Branche Sibérienne de l’Académie Russe des Sciences (Irkutsk, Russie). Si le mécanisme de l’équipe de Zherebtsov est correct, on pourrait alors se passer de l’hypothèse de l’effet de serre radiatif qui, comme vous le savez peut-être, pose certains problèmes (voir ici, ici et ici). Le but du présent article est simplement de présenter ce mécanisme et de montrer par la même occasion que la science du climat est loin d’être dite.
1. Observations réalisées le 7 novembre 2004
Les chercheurs russes ont d’abord constaté qu’à certaines latitudes il y a un lien assez fort entre le flux de rayons cosmiques solaires (RCS) et la température de la troposphère. Ceci est par exemple bien visible dans un évènement qui a débuté le 7 novembre 2004 au niveau des hautes latitudes de l’hémisphère nord (55°N-65°N). Ce jour-là, le flux de RCS était particulièrement fort d’environ 3 ordres de grandeur plus élevé par rapport à la normale (Figure 1a). Une tempête géomagnétique s’est ensuite déclarée le jour suivant et a duré au moins 5 jours (il s’agit de fluctuations brusques et intenses du magnétisme terrestre qui proviennent d’une perturbation de l’ionosphère par l’activité solaire). Ceci est bien visible sur le tracé des indices géomagnétiques AE (Figure 1b) et Dst (voir aussi ici), indices obtenus par certaines stations de mesure placées au sol et réparties en divers endroits de la planète (Figure 1c). Il existe de nombreux indices géomagnétiques et il n’est pas nécessaire d’être un spécialiste pour comprendre la suite du présent article. Il faut simplement retenir que le champ magnétique terrestre est perturbé les jours suivant l’arrivée des RCS. Voyons maintenant si tout ceci peut avoir un effet sur la température de la basse troposphère.
Figure 4. Diagramme présentant le mécanisme de Zherebtsov. Source : Zherebtsov et al. (2019) J Atm Solar Terrestrial Physics 182:217–222 (traduit de l’anglais).
by Zherebtsov G.A. et al., April 2019 in J.Atm&SolarTerrestrialPhysics
by F. Bosse and F. Vahrenholt, March 29, 2019 in NoTricksZone
The sun was also very sub-normally active in February. Although we are in the middle of the minimum, the sunspot number of 0.8 for the 123rd month into the cycle is very low. On 26 days of the month no spots were visible, only on 2 days was there a little, symmetrically distributed over both solar hemispheres.The only exciting question currently: When will the minimum be finished and will solar cycle 25 begin? Although 6 spots of the new cycle were already visible in February with a significantly higher resolution, estimates are difficult.March again was dominated by some spots of the “old” SC24. The rule: “weaker cycles often last longer than stronger cycles” could hold.
Figure 2: The strength of the sunspot activity of each cycle in comparison. The numbers in the diagram are obtained by adding up the monthly deviations between the observed values and the mean value (blue in Fig.1) up to the current 123rd cycle month.
Figure 2 shows that five cycles (No. 8, 15, 16, 18, 22) did not have a month 123 at all. Instead the following cycle started. In this respect, the picture is now somewhat distorted towards the end of the cycle.
See also here in GWPF
by Anthony Watts, March 12, 2019 in WUWT
Something this big today would surely fry electrical grids, GPS, and communications. It may be bigger than the Carrington Solar event of 1859.
Scientists have found evidence of a huge blast of radiation from the Sun that hit Earth more than 2,000 years ago. The result has important implications for the present, because solar storms can disrupt modern technology.
The team found evidence in Greenland ice cores that the Earth was bombarded with solar proton particles in 660BC. The event was about 10 times more powerful than any since modern instrumental records began.
The Sun periodically releases huge blasts of charged particles and other radiation that can travel towards Earth.
The particular kind of solar emission recorded in the Greenland ice is known as a solar proton event (SPE). In the modern era, when these high-energy particles collide with Earth, they can knock out electronics in satellites we rely on for communications and services such as GPS.
in GWPF, March 11, 2019
London, 11 March: A new report from the Global Warming Policy Foundation reveals that the solar influence on climate is is much larger than is generally recognised.
The report, by Professor Henrik Svensmark of the Danish National Space Institute, outlines some of the remarkable correlations between solar activity and past climate changes. It also shows that the output of the Sun alone – the so-called total solar irradiance – cannot explain them.
“Changes in total solar irradiance are actually quite small”, says Professor Svensmark. “They would have to be nearly 10 times larger to explain how the oceans warm and cool over the 11-year solar cycle.”
New research suggests that other mechanisms can amplify the effect of solar activity. The New report reviews the possible candidates, concluding that the most likely of these is the effects of galactic cosmic rays on cloud formation. This idea is plausible in theory and has received substantial empirical support in recent years.
However, Professor Svensmark says that insufficient attention is being paid to this research area:
“Galactic cosmic rays seem to be very important drivers of the Earth’s climate. But they are mostly being ignored at the moment because they are seen as distracting from conventional global warming research. Science needs to do better if we want to make progress in understanding the actual impact of natural factors of climate change.”
Henrik Svensmark: Force Majeure – The Sun’s Role In Climate Change (PDF)
About the author
Prof Henrik Svensmark is a physicist and a senior researcher in the Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics Division of the National Space Institute (DTU Space) in Lyngby, Denmark. Svensmark presently leads the Sun–Climate Research group at DTU Space.
by Dr Tony Phillips, March 6, 2019 in SpaceWeatherArchive
March 1, 2019: There are 28 days in February. This year, all 28 of them were spotless. The sun had no sunspots for the entire month of Feb. 2019. This is how the solar disk looked every day:
How does this affect us on Earth? The biggest change may be cosmic rays. High energy particles from deep space penetrate the inner solar system with greater ease during periods of low solar activity. Indeed, NASA spacecraft and space weather balloons are detecting just such an increase in radiation. Cosmic rays can alter the flow of electricity through Earth’s atmosphere, trigger lightning, potentially alter cloud cover, and dose commercial air travelers with extra “rads on a plane.”
As February ended, March is beginning … with no sunspots. Welcome to Solar Minimum!
by P. Homewood, February 18, 2019 i
Here’s the text from the original page (my bolding).
The Sun is the primary forcing of Earth’s climate system. Sunlight warms our world. Sunlight drives atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns. Sunlight powers the process of photosynthesis that plants need to grow. Sunlight causes convection which carries warmth and water vapor up into the sky where clouds form and bring rain. In short, the Sun drives almost every aspect of our world’s climate system and makes possible life as we know it.
Earth’s orbit around and orientation toward the Sun change over spans of many thousands of years. In turn, these changing “orbital mechanics” force climate to change because they change where and how much sunlight reaches Earth. (Please see for more details.) Thus, changing Earth’s exposure to sunlight forces climate to change. According to scientists’ models of Earth’s orbit and orientation toward the Sun indicate that our world should be just beginning to enter a new period of cooling — perhaps the next ice age.
Repost from JoNova
by P. Gosselin, February 17, 2019 in NoTricksZone
Today any warming found anywhere almost always gets blamed on heat supposedly getting trapped by rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Moreover, activist scientists insist we ignore all other powerful factors such as solar and oceanic cycles.
In fact these activists have become so extreme that they insist that record cold today is caused by warming.
But as people learned already in the first grade, the earth’s surface warms when the sun shines on it, and tends to cool when clouds obstruct the sun.
Solar radiation at the surface has risen over the past decades
In Japan, the Japanese Meteorology Agency (JMA) has 8 stations that measure solar radiation reaching the surface, and many other for recording temperature.
Data from the 8 stations recording solar radiation are plotted since 1999 (i.e. 20 years) as follows:
Data source: JMA
by Von Frank Bosse & F. Vahrenholt, January 30, 2019 in WUWT
Our sun was also very sub-normally active in December last year. We are writing the 121st month since the beginning of cycle number 24, in December 2008, and since 2012 (when we started the blog here) we could only reformulate the opening sentence once: In September 2017 when the sun was 13% more active than the long-term (since 1755) average.
All other months were below average. With the sunspot number (SSN) of 3.1 for the monthly average for December and a total of 24 days without any spot (throughout the second half of the month the sun was spotless) we are in the middle of the cycle minimum.
Fig. 2: The sunspot activity of our sun since cycle 1 (1755). The numbers are calculated by adding the monthly differences with respect to the mean (blue in Fig.1) up to the current cycle month 121.
by Prof. H. Svensmark, January 22, 2019 in NoTricksZone
Danish Professor Henrik Svensmark is a leading physicist of cosmic radiation. At the end of last year he made a presentation at the 12th International Climate Conference in Munich, where he demonstrated that the climate is indeed modulated in large part by cloud cover, which in turn is modulated by solar activity in combination with cosmic rays.
His theory is that cosmic rays, which are extremely fast-flying particles – which originate from dying supernovae – travel through the cosmos, strike the Earth’s atmosphere and have a major impact on cloud cover and thus climate on the Earth’s surface.
This, Svensmark says, has been confirmed in numerous laboratory experiments.
by F. Bosse & Prof. F. Vahrenholt, December 27, 2018 in ClimateChangeDispatch
The sun was much less active in November than normal, comparing all solar cycles 1-23 up to month no. 120 since the beginning of the systematic survey in 1755, the first year of solar cycle 1.
The latest observed SSN (sunspot number) was a meager 5.9 for the monthly average.
On 16 days the sun was completely “spotless.” The maximum number over the days of November was 15, which does not mean that there were 15 spots – no, the number indicates that 5 spots were observed in a maximum of 1 spot group.
So there was very low spot activity, only 20% of the average value.