pgtruspace's blog

about things that interest me.

Are Climate changes caused by Solar activity variations ?

Documentation of the solar activity variations and it’s influence on climate

Dimitris Poulos

Abstract of paper from:

The four planets that influence the most the solar surface through tidal forcing seem to affect the Earth climate. A simple two cosine model with periods 251 years, of the seasonality of the Earth – Venus syzygies, and 265.4 years, of the combined syzygies of Jupiter and Mercury with Earth when Earth is in synod with Venus, fits well the Northern Hemisphere temperatures of the last 1000 years as reconstructed by Jones et al (1998). The physical mechanism proposed is that planetary gravitational forces drive solar activity that in turn drives temperature variations in earth. The sun is in a boundary balance state at one hand collapsing due to gravity and at the other hand expanding due to fusion, and as such it should be heavily influenced by minimal external forcings such as planetary gravity. Sound waves in the solar mass, created from the planetary movement, are responsible for the formation of solar corona and sun spots. The Earth-Venus 251 year resonance is resonant to a near surface solar layer’s thermal natural frequency that “explodes” to form solar wind. The calculated solar wind properties match the observed.

 link to  pdf

Solar energy output.

Energy creation and output from the Sun is a factor of matter-energy density. Whether Fission or Fusion, changes in matter-energy density causes changes in Neutron decay or creation and therefor energy creation and output.

Just like a boiling pot of water that has a pressure set 212f /100c temperature of output, so the sun has a pressure set temperature of output, or TSI ( Total Solar Irradiance)  .surface temperature of approximately 5,778 K (5,505 °C, 9,941 °F). This is very stable. Just like the pot of water, changes in energy are manifest as “steam” wind output changes and not temperature change. During changes in solar output there are changes in the spectral signature of the solar TSI  Moving toward the higher frequencies as the output increases. Lower frequencies penetrate deeper into the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans but higher frequencies carry more energy.

The solar system is composed of a number of Sun orbiting bodies. Each causes some amount of gravitational pull on the solar body, as their position changes it changes the position of the center of gravity of the solar system

Changes in the Solar System center of gravity causes the solar body to move to and fro In it’s attempt to center it’s self with the local gravitational field. While there is an argument that this makes no difference as the sun is in “free-fall”.  All of the sun has mass, mass that resists changes in motion. Local tidal movements cause changes in local matter-energy density causing changes in local Fission/Fusion and therefore energy creation and output being caused by the position changes of the orbiting planets…pg

7 responses to “Are Climate changes caused by Solar activity variations ?

  1. Simon Derricutt June 24, 2016 at 7:03 am

    This seems like a reasonable theory. The trouble is that I can’t see what it’s predicting for the future that we can then check against – at least not in the fairly short decadal terms we need. It does look like figure 3 implies we’re at a local peak in temperature right now, and that it will drop after now, but these sorts of things need to be carefully stated so we know if it’s wrong.

    Tides on the Sun ought to make a difference as to what radiation comes in our direction, but there may also be some delay between cause and effect rather than an instant response. I’m however not that certain that there will be a generalised change, just in what is directed at us. We’ll however also see changes in the radiation intensity simply from the variations in the distance from the Sun itself as it orbits around the centre of mass of the solar system as a whole in the same way as the Earth does. There’s thus another layer of complexity because of the positions of the other planets (especially the giants which are not considered here) and I don’t think this paper is quite correct, and needs a bit more work.

  2. p.g.sharrow June 24, 2016 at 7:13 pm

    @Simon; you are very correct. The oceans of Earth are vast and in circulation. Timing of cause and effect must be questionable. Far too many variables to create a solid long term prediction.

    The “Climate Scientists” figured that if they got time on them, plugged in all of their information, the super computers could figure it out. Fools! computers are just DUMB machines that will do exactly what you tell to do, nothing more, no magic. You have to know how to get to your answer before you can program the computer to find it. Any error in the program will just multiply into the output. No judgment, no correction. The Earth with it’s hydrosphere is self correcting, More energy in results in more energy being pumped out.
    The thing that keeps rattling in my head is density altitude. The surface temperature of the Oceans and Atmosphere are very much conditional on the air pressure/density at the surface. The amount of air molecules in a volume determines the amount of energy that volume contains. This also sets the evaporation temperature of water. More air pressure results in higher water and air temperatures. Reduce the atmospheric pressure and temperatures decrease.

    This argument that CO2 could cause “Climate Change” is patently ridiculous. A change in density altitude of 500 feet could make the difference. Ice Mountains or not. Why is the amount of atmosphere considered stagnant?

  3. Simon Derricutt June 25, 2016 at 7:21 am

    pg – GIGO is just as valid now as when I first learnt the term. You can produce a nice fit for a set of weather data if you include enough fudge-factors (variables or “forcings”) but that does not allow you to correctly predict what is outside that range or predict the future.

    There will of course also be tides in the air movements, which is something I hadn’t really thought about when considering ocean tides and that there is also some ground-heave that is tidal.

    Still, it’s obvious that the climate has negative feedback. If it didn’t, then it would be varying far more and we wouldn’t be here to talk about it. Our very existence proves that the system self-corrects to a large extent.

    In the IPCC temperature data, the noise is a lot bigger than the signal, which makes it difficult to predict from the past anyway. I do however see a 60-odd year cycle in that, as well as a slight rise since 1850 or so which is as far back as real data goes, and even that isn’t really what we’d call accurate. Despite the fact that the accuracy and repeatability of the data are both not good, people have run it through the maths to generate an average world temperature to 1/100°C. Pretty unscientific, and proves they don’t understand the data.

    The solar activity theory at least starts from first principles, rather than finding the right fudge-factors to make the curve fit. It may not be the final answer, but it’s a good start and can be added to. It would be nice if the other climate models started from first principles and thus had a solid basis for their predictions. Even if the predictions don’t fit the known data as well, it’s better science and at least we’d have an idea of how far they’d be out for the future. Analysis of the errors also allows you to add in other factors, such as the Sun’s variations in radiation.

  4. p.g.sharrow June 26, 2016 at 2:33 pm

    @Simon; For those of us that love the examination of facts and puzzling out the cause and effects of how and why things are the way they are. Much of physics and nearly all of what passes as “Climate Science” is very disappointing. These people are searching for the next grant and Nobel prize. Real investigative research first and then opinion of how it might fit together is ignored as too expensive and time consuming. Just publish something that is acceptable to your peers and write your next grant proposal. Perhaps one should research “Why is the climate is so stable” given all the variables. Of course there is no money for that kind of thing. Only F. U. D. pays.

    When I look at the ocean basins I am reminded of Tesla’s resonant steam valve that would only allow steam flow in one direction to feed a reciprocating steam engine. The tidal action of sun and moon drags water from east to west as the earth rotates. This is constricted by the continents to cause circulations away from the equatorial regions of the impacted continents towards the poles and back to the point of origin and greatest drag at the equatorial east ocean. Atmospheric winds follow similar, but not the same, paths as they encounter the the surface topography. Both air and water are effected by circulating EMF from sun and earth. Then we add in vertical movements caused by heating and cooling, phase changes of H2O as well as gravity! 😉 enough moving parts yet? CO2 at 400ppm is just too insignificant to even be a part of the equation…pg

  5. p.g.sharrow June 26, 2016 at 7:15 pm

    I was looking up Pan Evaporation to come up with a better way to manage irrigation and discovered;

    Decreasing Trend of Pan Evaporation
    Further information: Global dimming and Global warming

    Over the last 50 or so years, pan evaporation has been carefully monitored. For decades, pan evaporation measurements were not analyzed critically for long term trends. But in the 1990s scientists reported that the rate of evaporation was falling. According to data, the downward trend had been observed all over the world except in a few places where it has increased.

    It is currently theorized that, all other things being equal, as the global climate warms evaporation would increase proportionately and as a result, the hydrological cycle in its most general sense is bound to accelerate. The downward trend of pan evaporation has since also been linked to a phenomenon called global dimming. In 2005 Wild et al. and Pinker et al. found that the “dimming” trend had reversed since about 1990

    Further information: Global dimming and Global warming

    “It is generally agreed that the evaporation from pans has been decreasing for the past half century over many regions of the Earth. However, the significance of this negative trend, as regards terrestrial evaporation, is still somewhat controversial, and its implications for the global hydrologic cycle remain unclear. The controversy stems from the alternative views that these evaporative changes resulted, either from global radiative dimming, or from the complementary relationship between pan and terrestrial evaporation. Actually, these factors are not mutually exclusive but act concurrently.”

    One more indication that Global Warming is a man made up problem.

    The rapidly building Sea Ice around Antarctica is also an indicator that the vast southern oceans are cooling. Something any good refrigeration engineer can attest to.
    All real proxies point to cooling and not warming of the planet…pg

  6. Tenuc November 3, 2016 at 1:18 am

    I think the traditional hydrological cycle is not well understood. The slowdown of pan evaporation is concurrent with the global ‘greening’ seen over the past several decades and could be something to do with increased plant transpiration.from the extra mass of vegetation. Plants continue to transpire even in an aerosphere saturated with moisture vapour, as demonstrated by closed greenhouses and a more saturated atmosphere means less evaporation from the sea abd other free bodies of water. Just a thought.

  7. pg sharrow November 5, 2016 at 4:44 pm

    @Tenuc; as discussed on Tallbloke’s Talkshop increased surface air density and pressure causes increased surface air temperature, but would decrease evaporation from the surface waters increasing water temperature in the oceans as well as cause decreased pan evaporation. So we have increased surface air temperature, increased surface ocean temperature but no increase in evaporation. This also results in decreased water demand by plants, specially in areas where water is the limiting factor for plant growth. Greater availability of the main fertiliser, CO2, also reduces the stress that plants have to deal with. The plants that don’t have to fight for water and CO2 grow amazing well…pg

please say something interesting

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: