Global warming vs Space Weather – It’s really NOT what you think

I’m going to propose two radical hypotheses:

  • Hypothesis 1: Dust changes temperature
  • Hypothesis 2: Temperature changes carbon dioxide

A sizeable percentage of scientists believe in anthropogenic global warming caused by the release of man-made CO2. Another sizeable percentage believe otherwise. Most scientists, however, withhold their opinion as it’s not their area of expertise, they haven’t taken the time to examine the data for themselves, or they’ve not conducted the exhaustive research required by science itself.

But do 97% of scientists agree, as is so often claimed? No. In fact, not even close. The correct answer lies at the opposite end of the scale: “Cook et al. found that over 97 percent of papers surveyed endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” As it turns out, Cook was absolutely wrong. In fact, less than 2% of papers actually said that. (Global Warming)

The problem with sound bytes is that once they’ve become widely accepted, to the masses, they’re reality, and there’s no end of videos and memes generated to support those commonly held beliefs, regardless of how wrong they may be. I reality, they always were, and remain horse hockey.

Pure science doesn’t step in horse hockey.

Pure science asks questions.  It’s more concerned with finding the right answer(s) than in merely finding most answers, some answers, a few plausible answers, or “an answer.”  Thus, it never makes claims based on some data without first exhausting all other possibilities.

The early IPCC reports refused to consider space weather at all. Fortunately, most actual scientists read them with the few grains of sale it deserved. When they later included space weather, they arbitrarily limited their scope to irradiance, rightfully stating changes in solar irradiance doesn’t explain global warming, while either failing or refusing to consider dust.

Fortunately, other scientists possessed the tools, education, knowledge and experience to know better.

Consider the following tri-component graph, derived from deep ice core samples including those from Vostok Station, the West Antarctic Sheet project, the British Antarctic Survey and the International Trans-Antarctic Scientific Expedition. These cores have been analyzed visually, via isotopic analysis, palaeoatmospheric sampling, glaciochemistry, radionuclides, and physical properties such as crytalline size and orientation.

The wealth of data is immense, but three key pieces of information present themselves for study: Temperature, CO2, and Dust.

The upper line in blue represents temperature over the last 420,000 years. As you can see, we’re in the fifth temperature peak over the 420k year period. The relatively high-temperature warming periods (inter-glacials) are much shorter than the far longer ice ages. Thus, Earth is usually more of a snowball than tropical. Brrr! There’s a chilly thought for you!

The middle line in green represents CO2 levels throughout the same 420,000 year period.

Finally, the lower line in red represents dust.

The most astonishing findings:

1. DUST ALWAYS PRECEDES TEMPERATURE
2. TEMPERATURE ALWAYS PRECEDES CO2

I love this chart, as it clearly shows the temporal relationship between Dust, Temperature, and CO2.

When you draw isochronic (same time) lines coinciding with peaks in Dust accumulation (red), you find that it always precedes Temperature, and always by a few thousand years (5k to 10k).

When you draw isochronic lines coinciding with peaks in Temperature (blue), you find that it always precedes CO2, and always by less than a couple hundred years.

Yes, you heard that correctly:

1. INCREASES IN DUST ALWAYS PRECEDES INCREASES IN TEMPERATURE
2. INCREASES IN TEMPERATURE ALWAYS PRECEDE INCREASES IN CO2

I am by no means the first person to make the second observation. In fact, John Coleman, the founder of The Weather Channel, noted precisely the same thing, namely, “the rise in CO2 followed the temperature increases, not cause it.”

While correlation does NOT imply causation, a successive series of high correlations combined with temporal precedence DOES imply causation.

Thus, the PROPER set of Hypotheses to test would be:

I: To what extent, both magnitude and lead time, does dust appear to be having on temperature?

II. To what extent in terms of both magnitude and lead time does temperature appear to be having on CO2?

III: What is the precise periodicity of the dust? Is it a single period equivalent to the spikes in dust? Or is it a whole product resulting from multiple smaller periods? (Think Fourier transforms)

IV: What might be the origin? Can the periodicity of the dust be reasonably attributed to an interstellar object, perhaps one originating in the Kuiper Belt or the Oort Cloud? Could it be attributed to the at-least two known regions of cosmic dust, either the interplanetary (zodiacal) dust cloud or the 10 AU to 40 AU dust cloud likely created by collisions within the Kuiper belt? Here’s an interesting quote: ” ‘They’re solid samples of stars — real stardust,’ Philipp Heck, the lead author of the study, said in a press release.” Interestingly enough, dust can easily become statically charged. Once charged, the dust is easily accelerated in the presence of an electric field — or an electric sheet. Thus, while the solar electric sheet can indeed control dust in the solar system, the galactic electric sheet can indeed control dust in the galaxy. Thus, our planet’s weather may very well be determined over the long haul by stardust!

V: Given the heliospheric current sheet (10^?10 A/m²) discovered by John M. Wilcox and Norman F. Ness, who published their finding in 1965, what would be the effect of the much more powerful galactic current sheet proposed by Hannes Alfvén and Per Carlqvist?

As a a counterpart of the heliospheric current sheet, with an estimated galactic current of 10^17 to 10^19 amperes — 100 billion to 10 trillion times more than the 3×10^9 amperes which supply our Aurora — the galactic current sheet which might flow in the plane of symmetry of the galaxy would have a very serious if not spectacular space weather effect on the Earth.

Consider the following well-known and documented scientific facts:

A. The heliospheric current sheet rotates along with the Sun with a period of about 25 dyas, during which time the peaks and troughs of the skirt pass through the Earth’s magnetosphere, interacting with it.

B. During solar maximum the entire magnetic field of the Sun flips, thus alternating the polarity of the field every 11-year solar cycle. Levels of solar radiation and ejection of solar material, the number and size of sunspots, solar flares, and coronal loops all exhibit a synchronized fluctuation, from active to quiet to active again, with a period of 11 years. This cycle has been observed for centuries by changes in the Sun’s appearance and by terrestrial phenomena such as auroras, not to mention long periods of maximum temperatures during extended periods of high sunspot activity as well as long periods of minimum temperatures during extended periods of minimal sunspot activity.

C. What might be the periodicity of a galactic current be? Or might this be the result of a galactic equivalent of our solar cycle, and if not that, then perhaps another phenomenon of which the SMBH and the surrounding stars at our galactic core are capable of performing?

If we find the periodicity to be on the order of a bit less than a quarter of a million years, twice that of the periodicity of our ice ages, which is roughly 120,000 years, I respectfully submit that the twice/period influx of a galactic current between 100 billion to 10 trillion times greater than the heliospheric current sheet’s current could very well be responsible for guiding charged dust particles to the earth, thereby ending our glacial periods and giving us a comparatively brief interglacial respite.

Be aware the center of our galaxy is extremely violent compared to our own rather benign Sun. Here’s a 1/10th degree visual photo of our galactic center, specifically directed at our galaxy’s supermassive black hole, which is approximately 4.1 million times the mass of our own Sun.

The raging white spiral taking up the center portion of the photo is many thousands of times larger than our own solar system. Clearly, one could not survive within many light years of its vicinity, and the forces it unleashes on our galaxy is certainly enough to hold it in position, despite the relatively weak force of gravity. Is it too much of a stretch to realize the electromagnetic radiation and movement of ionized particles spewing forth would create massive effects over great distances, the same as we experience from our comparatively tiny but much closer Sun?

Back to the graph, when you look at the dust itself, you see there are clearly two peaks prior to each spike in temperature, and these peaks seem to be spread out every 88,000 years. Thus, perhaps the galactic sheet periodicity we’re looking for might be closer to 170,000 years.

In the overall scheme of things, CO2 is greatly overshadowed by simple Water Vapor — evaporated H2O molecules in the atmosphere. Not only does H2O absorb several times what CO2 can absorb, but unlike CO2, which is fairly steady-state over time, H2O varies quite a bit on a daily, weekly, monthly, seasonal, annual, and periodic basis. In fact, both the form and the effect of H2O is substantially moderated by dust, including space dust.

One thing everyone complaining about fossil fuels fails to recognize is the following equation:

Oh, wait… That’s my lead-in, showing you all the H2O that’s produced when we burn carbon fuels.

Ok, here’s the equation:

The chemical composition of kerosene is fairly complex, and it is a complex mixture of paraffins (55.2%), naphthenes (40.9%), and aromatic hydrocarbons (3.9%). Kerosene tends to contain hydrocarbons that have anywhere from 11 to 13 carbons in the chains.

The point is that there are roughly double the hydrogen atoms than carbon atoms in jet fuel, meaning burning jet fuel produces roughly equal amounts of CO2 and H2O, the latter of which is at least three times more effective as a greenhouse gas than CO2. This is easy to see, visually, by noting the area under the curve of H2O is at least triple that of CO2. In fact, water vapor alone is the single greatest component of atmospheric IR absorption, being methane, nitrous oxide, oxygen, ozone, and carbon dioxide — combined.

Regardless of the cause of the latest and very minute spike in world-wide temperatures, 420 thousand years of rock-solid history of temperatures, CO2, and dust in multiple ice core samples taken from many areas undeniably proves it’s not man-made. Furthermore, both the periodicity as well as the volumes of dust suggest it’s not even of this solar system. Even though “long-period comets have highly eccentric orbits and periods ranging from 200 years to thousands of years.” By “thousands” we’re talking single digits. In fact, the “List of long-period comets” only extends to 1,000 year orbits. The periodicity of near-parabolic comets, on the other hand, suggest it’s possible that a mass much larger than Ceres but smaller than a planet from the Oort cloud could be paying us a periodic visit with a periodicity ranging between 60,000 and 120,000 years. Believe it or not, even an Earth-sized planet is very unlikely to cause such an increase in dust as we observe in the ice cores samples.

So where’s the dust coming from? The Sun? The Galaxy? Intrasolar or intragalactic space, as carried about by current sheets?

Hmm…

Regardless, the ice core samples alone show three things:

  • temperature swings precede CO2 levels, not the other way around
  • dust plays a significant role in global temperature moderation
  • interglacial (warm) periods are far shorter than glacials, and always end with a slight upturn before the slow freeze begins

If you don’t think dust doesn’t affect climate change, then perhaps you didn’t read the IPCC reports. They’re chock full of references to various kinds of dust, although once again, they mainly focus on “land aersols” while ignoring the far less locally concentrated but globally more plentiful and therefore significant space dust that has clearly presented itself as a precursor if not causative agent ending our planet’s glacial periods.

Food for thought, people!

And one last word on dust and soot, this time coming from the global warming/climate change alarmists themselves, who reported just today (in a 12/30/2019 update), “the fires in Australia are creating “their own weather.”

So? The Vehicle Assembly Building in Cape Canaveral is so big it generates its own weather, too.

It appears the alarmists are trying to say wildfires — created by nature — can change the weather…

TRUE! And we’ve known for at least forty years that SOOT plays a far greater role in the heating and cooling of a planet than people might imagine. Consider this quote from NASA’s Earth Observatory:

Therefore, a heavy influx of aerosol pollutants, like the plume from Mount Pinatubo, will remain in the stratosphere for years until the processes of chemical reactions and atmospheric circulation can filter them out. In the case of Mount Pinatubo, the result was a measurable cooling of the Earth’s surface for a period of almost two years.

Because they scatter and absorb incoming sunlight, aerosol particles exert a cooling effect on the Earth’s surface. The Pinatubo eruption increased aerosol optical depth in the stratosphere by a factor of 10 to 100 times normal levels measured prior to the eruption. (“Aerosol optical depth” is a measure of how much light airborne particles prevent from passing through a column of atmosphere.) Consequently, over the next 15 months, scientists measured a drop in the average global temperature of about 1 degree F (0.6 degrees C).

That’s VERY significant, once you learn both the solar electric sheet as well as the galactic electric sheet determine how much stellar and interstellar debris bombards Earth, thereby creating…

Dust and soot.

And what do we now know precedes either post-glacial warming or CO2 rise in the ice core samples dating back 420,000 years?

Dust and soot.

Are the pieces of the puzzle beginning to fall into place for you, now?

Remember, science doesn’t jump to conclusions. It keeps asking questions. The moment a movement stops asking questions, or worse, attempts to quell valid scientific discovery which appears to contradict widely-held tenets and agendas, that movement is no longer grounded in science at all.

What doesn’t work for science, however, is when large groups of people call something “established science” while ignoring real, actual, verified science which clearly and undeniably has kicked the legs out from beneath their models.

To date, the IPCC continues to give little more than a token nod to space weather, even though space weather was directly responsible for the greatest error in their models between 1990 and 2010. We experienced what is now called by real-life, tried and true astrophysicists (scientists) as the Modern Maximum, which began in 1914 and ended in 2008:

The Modern Maximum refers to the period of relatively high solar activity which began with Solar Cycle 15 in 1914. It reached a maximum in Cycle 19 during the late 1950s and may have ended with the peak of Cycle 23 in 2000, as Cycle 24 is recording, at best, very muted solar activity. Another proposed end date for the maximum is 2007, with the decline phase of Cycle 23. In any case the low solar activity of Cycle 24 in the 2010s marked a new period of reduced solar activity.

This maximum period is a natural example of solar variation, and one of many that are known from proxy records of past solar variability. The Modern Maximum reached a double peak once in the 1950s and again during the 1990s. – Source

Paradoxically, despite what this post demonstrates, when the sun is very low, C14 production jumps up higher than when the Sun is even moderately active, and producing C14 with its own ‘cosmic rays’ from flares and CME’s etc. So the climatic implication is that a Maunder type solar grand minimum’s cooling effect, once it is into it’s stride after a couple of cycles, is likely to be more strongly amplified by extra cloudiness than previously thought, cooling the surface with its strong negative feedback – Another thing the warmies have managed to get upside down. Which means that if the prognosis is correct and we are heading into a Maunder type minimum, we’ll be OK for a couple of decades yet as the solar cycles ramp down, and the historically high ocean heat content dissipates, but it might then get a lot colder very quickly if the sun’s magnetic activity dips below a threshold level which allows galactic cosmic rays to enter the inner solar system in much greater quantity. – Source

In summary, solar cycles have a far greater effect on global temperatures than any changes in “irradiance,” the only factor currently considered and subsequently dismissed by the IPCC in their reports as “negligible.” In so doing, the IPCC has created a faulty premise and walled themselves off to the very real and often measured reality of the role space aerosols play in Earth’s temperatures. The IPCC jumps all over man-made aerosols, from spray paints to dust kicked up by farming, construction, and mining, to coal fuel by-products, forest fires and much more. But they refuse to consider the measured presence of and obvious relation between dust and global warming.

In fact, the geological record strongly indicates that if it weren’t for the periodic introduction of dust from some extraterrestrial source, either solar, galactic, or both, the Earth would forever remain a cold and icy white marble, rather than the big blue marble it is today.

Parting Shot: Years ago, during the early third of my time in the Air Force, I grew so sick and tired of hearing the excuse, “Perception is Reality” that I began countering it with one of my own: “Perception is not reality. Rather, it is merely an abstraction thereof, and all too often, not a very good one at all.” So many people throughout history, including scientists, have been lead astray by jumping on board what appears to be true.

That’s not science.

Science postulates an hypothesis of what appears to be true, then tests that hypothesis, exhaustively, against all known observations countering the hypothesis, in an attempt to disprove the hypothesis. If the hypothesis withstands these tests, it advances, over time, to the status of “theory.”

The current status of what’s contained in the IPCC reports has not withstood the test of time. Many observations tug sharply at its “science.” Hard data refutes many of the IPCC hypotheses. Indeed, the IPCC itself continues to exclude both data as well as known and proven phenomena in it’s effort to advance it’s anthropogenic global warming agenda.

As to why they keep doing that, well, that’s another story

PART II: The Grand Solar Minimum is Upon Us

There’s a lady by the name of Valentina Zharkova who I’ve been following for some time. Without further ado:

Valentina Zharkova’s article confirming the next Grand Solar Minimum titled, ‘Oscillations of the baseline of solar magnetic field and solar irradiance on a millennial timescale’ has been accepted for publishing in Nature. Her team predicts the upcoming Grand Solar Minimum, similar to Maunder Minimum, which starts in 2020 and will last until 2055. The GSM cycle will again arrive in 2370 – 2415.

NASA’s article, Solar Minimum is Coming, explains it thusly: “The sun is heading toward solar minimum now. Sunspot counts were relatively high in 2014, and now they are sliding toward a low point expected in 2019-2020.”

Yes, people, this is tied to sunspots.

With the release of this paper, she clarifies her new findings on the Super Grand Minimum Cycle. …the last minimum of a super-grand cycle occurred at the beginning of Maunder minimum.

The Maunder Minimum roughly coincided with the middle part of the Little Ice Age, during which Europe and North America experienced colder than average temperatures. While global warming alarmists have recently attempted to explain away the “coincidence” by claiming volcanic action and other phenomena, the sheer number of such coincidences demand a more serious examination.

Her team’s calculations match up with the timelines of the Maunder Minimum (1645–1715), Wolf minimum (1300–1350), Oort minimum (1000–1050), Homer minimum (800–900 BC); also the Medieval Warm Period (900–1200), the Roman Warm Period (400–150 BC) and so on with great accuracy.

As you may observe from the following graphic, during periods of higher sunspot activity in the solar cycle, solar irradiance is higher. During fewer sunspots, the irradiance is lower. Thus, during abnormally long variations such as those mentioned above, solar irradiance over those long periods of time vary quite enough to significantly cool down and warm up the Earth, and not merely as “local phenomena” as claimed by global warming alarmists.

Currently, in the cycle of Super Grand Minimum cycles, the baseline magnetic field and solar irradiance are increasing to reach its maximum at 2600, after which the baseline magnetic field will be decreasing for another 1000 years. Why is this significant? It clearly shows we warm and cool as a part of these complex natural cycles. Our planet and Sun move in a complex orbital pattern which in turn affects our climate.

The upcoming grand solar minimum predicted, similar to Maunder Minimum, which starts in 2020 and will last until 2055 is a huge cause for concern. We are already witnessing increased unstable weather patterns, prolonged major floods, massive crop failures and wild swings in temperature (both up and down) among other extreme events, including high-level volcanic eruptions

Put simple, the next 35 years are on track for some significant and measurable global cooling, between 0.3 and 0.6 deg C. While that doesn’t sound like much, keep in mind the Earth’s annual cycle runs through both melted and frozen seasons over roughly half its surface. These decreases in temperature are likely to return Earth to a pre-1950’s baseline, temperature-wise, through the middle of this century, before resuming it’s course for a maximum in the year 2600.

One thought on “Global warming vs Space Weather – It’s really NOT what you think

Leave a Reply