Jump to content

Correlating sunspot CME activity with CGR reporting


Guest Keith Woodard

Recommended Posts

Guest Keith Woodard

Good Day,

 

I have been tracking sunspot activity since I was a teenager. I have heard that the last solar maximum was one of the weakest solar cycles in about 100 years. I wrote my undergraduate thesis on Climate Change in which I researched several peer-reviewed studies about the possible impact of solar activity on earth's climate both past and present. To this end, I track sunspot activity at this site but I also correlate CMR activity and measure how when there is a significant flare or CME event, CGR activity or cosmic radiation as measured here on the earth decreases (http://neutronm.bartol.udel.edu/realtime/thule.html). There is an inversely proportional relationship. There is a working theory that supposes when CGRs continue to increase over a period of time through each successive solar cycle, that there will be enhanced cloud-formation at the lower-levels that also contribute to lowering the average global temperature. However, not all sunspots are created equal. Some are more active than others. Just counting sunspots is not the answer but counting the successive CME events over a period of time. Another good measure is to simply track the Northern Lights for example, especially at middle latitudes. The more activity you observe displayed the less CGRs will impact our global weather. Earth's magnetosphere increases and decreases depending on CME activity; it is a natural shield against cosmic radiation (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2545465/Forget-global-warming-worry-MAGNETOSPHERE-Earths-magnetic-field-collapsing-affect-climate-wipe-power-grids.html).

 

Best Regards,

Keith Woodard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Keith Woodard

CGR stands for Cosmic Galactic Radiation. It originates from super nova explosions, black hole emissions, and other celestrial objects.


CME stands for Coronal Mass Ejection. The particles that compose CGR is different than CME at the subatomic level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Corsmic background radiation is indeed highest in a solar minimum. The solar wind protects us in that way that it keeps the cosmic rays far far from us. The point where the solar wind reaches zero (heliosheath, zone between the termination shock and the heliopauze at the boundary of our solar system) is a variable point in space where in solar minimum it gets closer towards the Sun and in times of solar maximum it expands again due to the CME's that pushes it further behind.

The last solar maximum was in the so cooled modern maximum where solar maximum was rather high, compared to the current solar cycle that lacks lots of activity the chances that more cosmic rays might reach us can be true indeed. There is still a lot of research on it. It's known that a larger amount of cosmic rays may cause more cloud cover on Earth. So when you look back in time to the dalton minimum or maunder minimum, the temperatures on Earth where lower than normal. The lack of the solar cycle caused most probably that more cosmic rays reached us and thus caused more cloud cover, blocking the sun to heat the Earth but also less energy from the sun itself.

So The Sun and our climate there is still much research needed but it is a very hot topic for me if you would ask. I read a book on it a couple of years ago and from what i know, we still don't know the exact influence of the sun on our planet and it's climate. Not only for the climate but also the inner workings of the sun that we don't understand fully yet. This whole thing makes it a very interesting topic.

I do agree that sunspot counts are not a good way into measuring the overal activity for that kind of research. CME's and high speed coronal holes are the ones to look in to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Harry Twinotter

There is no correlation between sunspots and the earth's climate. The scientists researched it and have come to the conclusion there is no significant effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no correlation between sunspots and the earth's climate. The scientists researched it and have come to the conclusion there is no significant effect.

sunspots itself yes, i agree on that. Sunspots does not say much in that story. CME's have an effect on our bubble of the solar system and effect on cosmic rays but that requires more research.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Harry Twinotter

sunspots itself yes, i agree on that. Sunspots does not say much in that story. CME's have an effect on our bubble of the solar system and effect on cosmic rays but that requires more research.

 

Perhaps I should have used the term solar activity instead of sunspots. Cosmic rays reaching the earth do go up and down in correlation with solar activity. But there is little evidence to suggest that cosmic rays affect cloud formation. Also even if cloud formation did increase, clouds can both cool and warm the earth - it does not follow that more clouds will cause a cooling trend.

A problem with the Maunder Minimum theory that it causes a cooler climate is the Little Ice Age started well before the Maunder Minimum, and continued after the Maunder Minimum had finished. No cooling occurred during the Dalton Minimum that I am aware of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Australis

Also even if cloud formation did increase, clouds can both cool and warm the earth - it does not follow that more clouds will cause a cooling trend.

 

 

Clouds will reflect the sun light back into space, clouds will cool the earth.

The university of Jerusalem thinks that the earth will fly once in the +++/---10000 years (not geometrically) into a zone of hight cosmic-ray density. (kind of Parkerspiral for cosmic-rays)

It possible explains the ice ages.

 

Oke, there is not a (hard) evidence but that will cost only time..

 

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2013/sep/09/physicists-claim-further-evidence-of-link-between-cosmic-rays-and-cloud-formation

 

In the solar maximum, the magnetic field of the sun is much stronger and wil blok out comic rays.

A other way how the sun will warm the earth is, the energy dropt in the auroral ovals.

The auroral ovals heats up the thermosphere, highter solar activity means more heating in the stratosphere/thermosphere.

 

See also this url;

 

http://www.weer.nl/weer-in-het-nieuws/weernieuws/ch/f7f43c2f28638b36372340b256f69cbe/article/wat_gebeurt_er_de_komende_winter.html

[please translate]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Harry Twinotter

Clouds will reflect the sun light back into space, clouds will cool the earth.

The university of Jerusalem thinks that the earth will fly once in the +++/---10000 years (not geometrically) into a zone of hight cosmic-ray density. (kind of Parkerspiral for cosmic-rays)

It possible explains the ice ages.

 

Oke, there is not a (hard) evidence but that will cost only time..

 

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2013/sep/09/physicists-claim-further-evidence-of-link-between-cosmic-rays-and-cloud-formation

 

In the solar maximum, the magnetic field of the sun is much stronger and wil blok out comic rays.

A other way how the sun will warm the earth is, the energy dropt in the auroral ovals.

The auroral ovals heats up the thermosphere, highter solar activity means more heating in the stratosphere/thermosphere.

 

See also this url;

 

http://www.weer.nl/weer-in-het-nieuws/weernieuws/ch/f7f43c2f28638b36372340b256f69cbe/article/wat_gebeurt_er_de_komende_winter.html

[please translate]

 

The article you posted a link to says the aerosol particles created by cosmic rays are "Too small to form clouds". Plus the laboratory tests by themselves do not prove that cosmic rays form clouds.

The solar output does not vary much, it is steady. http://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/question-4/

 

More clouds cool the earth by reflection. But they can also warm the earth by retaining heat, especially at night. This is why cloudy nights are usually warmer than clear nights.

 

Warming of the thermosphere by variations in ultraviolet radiation from the sun has been measured. But none of the warming of the thermosphere makes it down to the troposphere to warm the surface of the earth. 

A zone of higher cosmic ray density every 10,000 years? - I just don't believe it. Do you have a link to the research paper by the University of Jerusalem? The scientific theory is Ice Ages are caused by variations in the earth's orbit around the sun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Keith Woodard

Good Day,

Here are a few of my peer-reviewed journals behind my assertions. I do know for a fact that the solar behavior of the past decade has been reminiscent of the period dominated by lower solar activity during the Little Ice Age. It is interesting that you mentioned the correlation between aurora activitiy and heating of the stratosphere. This condition is the best explanation of the 3rd dip of the arctic polar jet over the United States. However, under the Climate Change model, increased CO2 emissions should have produced the opposite effect. You can prove higher or lower periods of solar activity in the past through proxy data such as tree rings for example or pollen counts. During periods of higher solar activity the earth is naturally heated and you have more tree and vegetation growth. I agree with the theory behind changes in the earth's orbit causing past Ice Ages but look also at the big picture, changes in our solar system's orientation among the stars. Stars that emit vast amounts of cosmic radiation during their decaying life cycles.

 

 

Solheim, J-E, Stordahl, K., Humlum, O. (February 2012).
The long sunspot cycle 23 predicts a significant temperature decrease in cycle 24

Svensmark, H., Calder, N. (2008). The Chilling Stars, A Cosmic View of Climate Change.. UK: Clays of Bungay.


Beckman, J.E., Mahoney, T.J. (1998). The Maunder Minimum and Climate Change: Have Historical Records Aided Current Research. Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias, E-38200 La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain


CERN Accelerating Science. CLOUD. Referenced by
http://home.web.cern.ch/about/experiments/cloud





There is no direct correlation between counting the number of sunspots and our global climate. However, it is in the lag times between weak and strong solar cycles that should be the focal point. It takes time for the effect of sun to change our climate. The year of 1988 did not become one of the hottest years on record over night; it was the build-up of active solar cycles over time. If it is true as some scientists have theorized and we are entering a period of low solar activity over the next 100 to 200 years, you will observe enhanced cloud formation over lower levels that will cool the planet. I read a report just recently that stated it has not warmed for the last 17 years and 6 months, even though the IPCC had NOT predicted it would.

Cheers,
Keith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I attended eight classes a few months ago about weather.
The strange thing is that you tell that it did not warm up for 17 years and 6 months.
 
The teacher told us that our clamite has still the potential of being very hot in summer and very cold in winter.
But its not stable anymore in the past you had a hot summer and a cold winter now we have a hotter summer and a hotter winter.
That doesnt mean its not cold anymore. But not record breaking cold while in summer its record breaking hot
 

i think there is nobody that can deny its getting hotter, glaciers are melting, ice bears are struggling to survive from the melting ice,
desert get bigger and so much more evidence.

 

i believe we go to a new maunder minimum and i believe that a lack of solar activity has affect on earth and its climate i just dont believe its not getting any hotter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Keith Woodard

Even Accuweather has admitted a much colder Gulf of Mexico and Western Atlantic Ocean. That is probably why there was significant snowfall in SE Texas and South Louisiana and two feet of snow up on the D.C. area. It normally does not snow in these areas much less the record cold temperatures. Something is at work at a global scale that impacts our weather but I think it has little to do with increasing CO2 concentrations. CO2 levels were high back during the last big Ice Age. I have not seen one computer model that has accurate predicted this season's winter correctly. We have already experienced 3 major Arctic oscillation events or Polar Vortex and no one is explaining why the Stratosphere has experienced sudden warming events, especially when the current anthropogenic model predicts the opposite. I think we would be better off reading the Farmer's Almanac instead of going by NASA and NOAA predictions when the data is so idelogically biased.

Please show me real data behind your assertion that we have experienced signficant glacier ice melting since last year. The Antarctica ice alone has increased 25% beyond its norm for its summer season which the Arctic has experienced significant recovery during its maximum period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Harry Twinotter

Good Day,

Here are a few of my peer-reviewed journals behind my assertions. I do know for a fact that the solar behavior of the past decade has been reminiscent of the period dominated by lower solar activity during the Little Ice Age. It is interesting that you mentioned the correlation between aurora activitiy and heating of the stratosphere. This condition is the best explanation of the 3rd dip of the arctic polar jet over the United States. However, under the Climate Change model, increased CO2 emissions should have produced the opposite effect. You can prove higher or lower periods of solar activity in the past through proxy data such as tree rings for example or pollen counts. During periods of higher solar activity the earth is naturally heated and you have more tree and vegetation growth. I agree with the theory behind changes in the earth's orbit causing past Ice Ages but look also at the big picture, changes in our solar system's orientation among the stars. Stars that emit vast amounts of cosmic radiation during their decaying life cycles.

Solheim, J-E, Stordahl, K., Humlum, O. (February 2012).

The long sunspot cycle 23 predicts a significant temperature decrease in cycle 24

Svensmark, H., Calder, N. (2008). The Chilling Stars, A Cosmic View of Climate Change.. UK: Clays of Bungay.

Beckman, J.E., Mahoney, T.J. (1998). The Maunder Minimum and Climate Change: Have Historical Records Aided Current Research. Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias, E-38200 La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain

CERN Accelerating Science. CLOUD. Referenced by

http://home.web.cern.ch/about/experiments/cloud

There is no direct correlation between counting the number of sunspots and our global climate. However, it is in the lag times between weak and strong solar cycles that should be the focal point. It takes time for the effect of sun to change our climate. The year of 1988 did not become one of the hottest years on record over night; it was the build-up of active solar cycles over time. If it is true as some scientists have theorized and we are entering a period of low solar activity over the next 100 to 200 years, you will observe enhanced cloud formation over lower levels that will cool the planet. I read a report just recently that stated it has not warmed for the last 17 years and 6 months, even though the IPCC had NOT predicted it would.

Cheers,

Keith

The paper "Solheim, J-E, Stordahl, K., Humlum, O. (February 2012).

"The long sunspot cycle 23 predicts a significant temperature decrease in cycle 24" has been show to be flawed. It does not match with reality.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Solar-Cycle-Model-fails.html

The IPCC report disagrees with what you say, there has been warming over the last 17 years just not as fast as in previous decades. This is variability in the climate system. Anyway I don't want to be distracted into talking about general global warming on this forum as it is a forum for space weather.

I did make a comment about heating in the thermosphere due to ultraviolet radiation. The stratosphere has actually been cooling roughly in line with the CO2 warming model, this is good evidence that the CO2 warming model is correct.

The last several solar cycles do not match what happened during the Maunder Minimum. I have never seen any evidence that solar activity was lower during the entire Little Ice Age - it varied high and low. Also the fact that the Little Ice Age only affected Western Europe rules out variations in solar activity as the cause, if it was caused by the sun then it should have affected the entire globe. If you look at the Hockey Stick temperature reconstruction it does not show global cooling at that time.

The IPCC report gives an estimate for the solar activity contribution to Global Warming, it is too low to account for the global temperature increases over the last 100 years.

Even Accuweather has admitted a much colder Gulf of Mexico and Western Atlantic Ocean. That is probably why there was significant snowfall in SE Texas and South Louisiana and two feet of snow up on the D.C. area. It normally does not snow in these areas much less the record cold temperatures. Something is at work at a global scale that impacts our weather but I think it has little to do with increasing CO2 concentrations. CO2 levels were high back during the last big Ice Age. I have not seen one computer model that has accurate predicted this season's winter correctly. We have already experienced 3 major Arctic oscillation events or Polar Vortex and no one is explaining why the Stratosphere has experienced sudden warming events, especially when the current anthropogenic model predicts the opposite. I think we would be better off reading the Farmer's Almanac instead of going by NASA and NOAA predictions when the data is so idelogically biased.

Please show me real data behind your assertion that we have experienced signficant glacier ice melting since last year. The Antarctica ice alone has increased 25% beyond its norm for its summer season which the Arctic has experienced significant recovery during its maximum period.

The CO2 levels are much higher now than they were during the last Ice Ages. The current CO2 level are very likely the highest in the last 1 million years or so.

I have never heard of the stratosphere experiencing sudden warming events - do you have a reference to evidence for this?

No model can predict the weather accurately, no one has ever said they could. What the models do give are estimates and ranges for the global average temperature.

I cannot understand why you are discrediting NASA and NOAA. Where is the evidence that shows they are ideologically biased? If you do not trust the evidence from the space weather scientists, how can you trust the research from other scientists you quoted earlier - that is cherry-picking.

They do have evidence that land-based ice at the Antarctic has decreased, this ice makes up the ice cap. Antarctic sea ice has increased, but it is new ice and is highly variable, it is still an ongoing area of research.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Keith Woodard

Good Day,

 

 

Although I do invite healthy scientific debate under this forum I do want to stay within scope of Space Weather. There are many tangents to get lost in with dealing with anthropogenic warming. With that being said, I would like to speak more on stratospheric warming and cooling.

 

 

You said: “I did make a comment about heating in the thermosphere due to ultraviolet radiation. The stratosphere has actually been cooling roughly in line with the CO2 warming model; this is good evidence that the CO2 warming model is correctâ€

 

 

The latest logical explanation I have found for the 3 Arctic oscillation (AO) events or Polar Vortex is due to sudden heating of the Stratosphere or SSW. However, under the anthropogenic model, the opposite should be true. Large dips of the Arctic polar jet are not normal and minor dips only occur once every 2 to 3 years but we have had 3 major events just this winter season alone.

 

 

Please consult this reference for more information:

 

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/stratospheric-phenomenon-is-bringing-frigid-cold-to-us-15479

 

As for you fact-checking a peer-reviewed, scientific article, that was a good thing in objective science but what about fact checking the IPCC in many of their failed predictions.

 

 

 

Cheers,

Keith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Harry Twinotter

Good Day,

 

 

Although I do invite healthy scientific debate under this forum I do want to stay within scope of Space Weather. There are many tangents to get lost in with dealing with anthropogenic warming. With that being said, I would like to speak more on stratospheric warming and cooling.

 

 

You said: “I did make a comment about heating in the thermosphere due to ultraviolet radiation. The stratosphere has actually been cooling roughly in line with the CO2 warming model; this is good evidence that the CO2 warming model is correctâ€

 

 

The latest logical explanation I have found for the 3 Arctic oscillation (AO) events or Polar Vortex is due to sudden heating of the Stratosphere or SSW. However, under the anthropogenic model, the opposite should be true. Large dips of the Arctic polar jet are not normal and minor dips only occur once every 2 to 3 years but we have had 3 major events just this winter season alone.

 

 

Please consult this reference for more information:

 

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/stratospheric-phenomenon-is-bringing-frigid-cold-to-us-15479

 

As for you fact-checking a peer-reviewed, scientific article, that was a good thing in objective science but what about fact checking the IPCC in many of their failed predictions.

 

 

 

Cheers,

Keith

 

Most of your comments appear to be trying to dispute Anthropogenic Global Warming - this is not a Global Warming deniers forum. The majority of climate scientists disagree with you.

 

I do know a bit about Sudden Stratospheric Warming, but it has little or nothing to do with space weather so I won't be discussing it on this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you also agree to our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.