Do Solar scientists sing in harmony or in unison? Part 1

June 18, 9:10 PMNew Haven County Environmental Policy ExaminerKirtland Griffin

Previous Next

5 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the New Haven County Environmental Policy Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

Insert photo caption or credit hereWhether

Whether you are listening to Al Gore or Joe Lieberman, James Hansen or Gavin Schmidt the alarmist global warming crowd will give you the same story as if singing in unison. There is no harmony and no deviation in their tone or volume for that matter. You could throw in Steven Schneider, the 70's cooling alarmist, turned warming alarmist and the UN International Panel on Climate Change. Different names but the tune is the same. This should raise a huge red flag, but authority can be very intimidating. It almost seems well rehearsed. The basic script is from an Inconvenient Truth with the notes supplied by the IPCC. Verses are added just like the Ballad of Davy Crockett back in the 50's and they all learn them just as we did back then with Davy Crockett.

The sceptics of man-made global warming, on the other hand, have little in common. Some sceptics believe that the oceans cause climate to change, some believe that it is the changes in the magnetic field of the Earth, still others claim that it is the distance between the Sun and Earth changing in Milankovitch cycles. There are a lot of cycles. It is almost like alphabet soup vitamins only with numbers of years. I think it would be difficult to pick a number that didn't have a cycle associated with it.

When it comes to the Sun, there are commonalities but several different ways to focus on how climate is affected. Lets talk about a few of these scientists and I will reference a paper for each to help the more adventurous reader to learn more than my simple summary. I would encourage everyone to try their hand at the papers. It is amazing how much you can get out of them, especially when you have an idea of what the author is saying. Often the conclusion is the most readable part of the paper.

I will start with a favorite of mine, Dr. Theodor Landscheidt of Canada. I will use his paper as a basis for comparison of others that are currently active in solar research or publishing papers. He was the first that I read and I still get confused in his works with the big hands and little fingers. The hands and fingers are parts of the epitrochoid shaped solar orbit from Fairbridge/Mackey discussed here.  Using this analogy, Lanscheidt forecasted some El Nino events years before they happened. He did not bat 1000 but did pretty good. His work was the foundation of several to follow him according to some current scientists. Unfortunately, he died in 2004, before some of his predictions came true.

In the referenced paper he made this statement which has become quite common recently "On this basis, I forecasted, in 1982, that we should expect declining temperatures after 1990 and probably a new Little Ice Age around 2030". Cycle 23 (currently in it's decline) was weaker than cycle 22 which ended in 1996 and many currently predict a significant cooling until 2030 and possibly beyond. In the paper another quote,"Clouds have a hundred times stronger effect on weather and climate than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Even if the atmosphere’s CO2 content doubled, its effect would be cancelled out if the cloud cover expanded by 1%, as shown by H. E. Landsberg [53]. Svensmark’s and Friis-Christensen’s result is therefore of great importance.", a severe indictment of the claim of CO2 caused warming. Cosmic rays and solar storms and wind constitute a nucleus for water vapor to form droplets which form clouds. He then goes on to say, " from the diminution of this cooling effect between 1986 and 1990 that the solar irradiance has increased by about 1.5 W/m² within these three and a half years. A change of this order is quite remarkable, since the total radiative forcing by carbon dioxide accumulated since 1750 has been estimated by the IPCC not to go beyond 1.5 W/m² . This means that cosmic rays, strongly modulated by solar activity, achieve an effect within three and a half years for which the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere needs centuries. This shows clearly to what extent the greenhouse effect has been overestimated in comparison with the solar contribution to climate change, which turns out to be the most important factor...D. Hoyt and K. H. Schatten [39] judge their elaborate results as follows: “From the record, we believe the sun plays a major role in natural secular climatic changes on time scales of decades to centuries.". " 

Of major importance in the solar activity is the  role of the alternating, fluctuating magnetic cycles of the Sun every 11 years. The result is that every other cycle the Sun has the same magnetic polarity. This is significant in that the polarity of even numbered cycles results in cooler temperatures here despite the level of sunspot activity:That is my conclusion. IMHO

It is interesting that as we are entering a small finger where he predicts more active solar storms (eruptions) which almost seems incongruous with the extreme solar minimum we are experiencing. Even when solar cycle gets moving the storms may be energenic as we will still be in a small finger for about 30+ more years. Solar eruptions generally shun sunspots. He concludes his paper with "A general survey of the given results indicates that climate variations are governed by the sun, not mankind." Seems like a valid conclusion.

This seems to be to me classic Landscheidt although someone more familiar with his work might differ. Regardless, it is clear that he feels very strongly that the following affect our climate:

1. Large and tight loops in the eptrochoid shaped solar orbit. (Big hands small fingers).

2. Magnetic 22 year cycles.

3. Effect of the planets on the Sun's orbit.

4. The Sun has a more dominant force on our climate than CO2.

5. The IPCC was wrong in relegating the Sun to a minor role in our climate.

6. Has detected evidence of nuclear fission as well as fusion in the Sun's photosphere. This will become relevent in future analysis.

I find it interesting to note that, included in his list of references, are works by James Hansen of NASA, technical advisor for Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth and man-made global warming advocate. In my next part, I will have a comparison of Landscheidt to a current solar specialist and hopefully some comments from the source. My next article will be about the Climate report that the Obama administration released on Tuesday. That will take a few parts also. Stay tuned!