View Article

view the latest news articles
Solar Cycle 25 to end "Man Made Climate Change" myth - with comments by Piers Corbyn
Thursday, May 21st 2009, 9:25 AM UTC
Co2sceptic (Site Admin)
There have been various emergency economic proposals put forward recently, in that, in order to save Mankind from an overheating Earth, we need to stop runaway greenhouse gases that are apparently warming the planet, namely CO2. The life saving idea is that we should modify our industrial output, by using less of this very poisonous and toxic substance, and then use an even more dramatic accounting method to share the pollution equally with those nations who "have" and those who "have not". The economic cost or loss involved has little or nothing to do with the outcome, as doing "something" to save Mankind from the destruction of our planet far outweighs doing "nothing".

It all sounds a fantastic idea to save the human race from certain death, but in fact it’s just another ideological panacea. This is all designed to keep up the momentum that man is changing the Earth's climate to such an extent that unless the Human race do something now, we are all going to die. There is another way to look at this situation, and that is, it has become another version of the Hans Christian Andersen's story "The Emperor's New Clothes". The Emperor, or to use this analogy, the principal so called climate scientists, are on display to the main stream media, the media report what they have been told, and in turn inform the public at large that the Emperor is looking great in his new clothes in spite of being totally naked. Naked being the description used for a complete lack of scientific evidence to support this label of scientific office.

Article continues below this advert:

Science has a history of fighting for the truth, just like good and evil, regretfully this is just another drawn out battle between the respective parties, who are involved to justify their aims and objectives. But now the story has taken an unexpected “twist”, in that, you would have seen far less of an argument for the "Climate Realists" if it was not for the Sun being unexpectedly quiet during the past year and a half, and the implications of this are profound for each and every one of us, at last there is a voice in the crowd saying, why is the Emperor naked!

The "Climate Realist" have a well deserved lucky break, be it, we are moving out of one scenario and into another, or put another way, we could be jumping from the fictitious frying pan straight into a fridge!

The IPCC/UN computer models have failed so many times you would have thought good old "common sense" would have prevailed by now, in that, the “Man Made Climate Change“ theory does not work. The fact of the matter is, the media are supporting and reporting a spurious theory and in turn misleading the public at large, they even go to great lengths’ to report the models are doing what they all expected them to do, I have even known them to say "cooling is a sure sign of warming"!

The Earth’s history is very revealing on the Sun's long term solar activity and our climate, less activity on the Sun results in "Global Cooling" and more activity results in "Global Warming". Somehow this simple rule of "thumb" has not made an appearance to those people directly involved with "Man Made Climate Change" (MMCC).

And here is the reason why.

In times of low solar activity the Earth has more "dust" in its atmosphere, the MMCC analysis show this as a spurious "coincidence". The principal climate scientists go on to say that volcanic "dust" was the reason behind times of “Global Cooling” and not the coincidental low solar activity.

This is what they say about the Dalton Minimum period from 1790 to 1839, during this time there was extra volcanic activity, and the dust from the eruptions reduced the effect of the Sun on the Earth.

At no stage was it ever put forward that the period of low solar activity was the "cause" of the Earth being more susceptible to tectonic plate movements. It’s another example of the IPCC/UN showing the “Effect being the “Cause”.

If you now accept that our climate is determined by the activity on the Sun, you must also accept that people can forecast the future from observed solar data rather then from the spurious analysis of "Man Made Climate Change".

I recently put this question of low solar activity and tectonic plate movement to Astrophysicist Piers Corbyn of WeatherAction, who specialize in Solar wind forecasts, and use their models for climate predictions on the Earth weather system's, these show a very high accuracy in long range weather forecasts, and here is what he said....See the below comment section from Piers, he expands on the following remarks

“Think of a freight train moving, or being "active", the journey is fairly constant with not too many collisions between the separate carriages, but when the train is stationary or "non active" each carriage will collide as the train starts to move.

I can forgive anyone for not understanding this analogy for the first time, as it's the reverse of what you think. In that, a non active Sun affects the Earth more often, but why?

The answer to that is...

An "Active" Sun is a healthy Sun, in that, the frequency of "spots" indicates the patient has come through the illness and what you see on the surface of the Sun is just like what you would see after someone has had measles, the condition of the patient with spots is after the virus!

So, a "quiet" Sun is when you would expect to find far more magnetic disturbances on the Sun, and more tectonic plate movement on the Earth.

So, what does this all mean for the title of this news blog? It simply means that as we approach Solar Cycle 25 (appx 2019) the Earth will continue to gradually cool from the 1998 peak, due to the lack of solar activity. As far as the "Myth" of “Man Made Climate Change”, the public at large will wake up to the realization of a "cooler" climate in a modern world, in so doing, they will probably disregard any information presented to them by the media that supported the “Man Made” myth.

The media have a responsibility to report to the public a balanced objectiveness, they also should voice skeptical points of view. We have come through a period in history that has shown this not to be the case; it’s thanks to the World Wide Web that there is now a voice in the crowd.

Original comments.........(removed after site upgrade)

From Ian

It's a tentative connection so far. All that can be said with confidence is that there was volcanic activity that amplified solar influence, not that the solar influence was responsible for the tectonic activity. Trying to chase down volcanoes takes one on an interesting journey.

I'll relate to you where my mind has wandered on this topic but please note it is all conjecture at this stage.

Firstly the mechanisms that support or don't support the solar driven tectonics. Recent ice melt must be too small to have other than a tiny local effect on the mantle due to its being dense, albeit plastic although ongoing deglaciation rebound may be relevant. Atmospheric density variation is too small to be consequential. Oceans are a different matter for 2 reasons. A cooling ocean is a shrinking ocean that is increasing in density. That must have consequences as pressure relief where the ocean cover becomes shallower. Increasing density must increase pressure in a reduced basin. So there I can agree to some extent that a solar-ocean connection to tectonic movement exists. Magnitude is the problem.

Another influence in play where again magnitude is a problem is extra planetary gravity. That would be the tidal influence of mainly the Sun, Jupiter and the Moon. That Jupiter has sufficient gravity to influence the Sun tells me it must have a stronger influence on the smaller Earth. Dependent on Jupiter's location relative to and in combination with the Sun must cyclically amplify the effects of the Moon on the sunny side of the Earth and reduce them on the opposite side. Saturn is likely to be relevant. There is already a tentative linking of lunar phase and earthquake activity. Much still to be learned there.

Ongoing plate boundary activity probably originated at the time of the planet's initial expansion. Of the competing theories the expanding planet holds more water than a fixed size planet from my reading. If it is still expanding that would explain why we still have plate movement. The fixed planet explanation of diverging and converging plates is highly unsatisfying to my logic.

So how did the planet come to be small? If it was formed mainly from condensing gas, common sense says at some stage it was small with a solid surface overlaying an interior much more fluid than today and with a deep atmosphere. Capturing the Moon with an initial very oval orbit that brought it in close proximity or even contact could explain the loss of atmosphere and much of its pressure on the Earth's surface. (I prefer that idea to a solar flare blasting the atmosphere away.) Extreme variation of tidal influence could also explain the rupturing of the granite crust. The permanent pressure release seen e.g. in the ring of fire may also have originated in a large meteor impact or repeated bombardment so lots of possibilities.

Subsequent internal depressurization of a then rapidly spinning globe followed. Depressurization causing cooling caused expansion. Depressurization continues today at a much reduced rate. Evidence of rapid loss of pressure can be seen in the Deccan Flats at the end of the Cretaceous ~65mya and the the Siberian Flats near the end of the Permian 248mya, the latter said to have produced sufficient lava to cover the globe 10' deep. Those events may have been triggered by impacts from meteors. I guess the fact that we see sub crustal magma erupting is sufficient evidence that there is depressurization ongoing.

The core is not fixed relative to the planet centre and must be influenced by lunar, solar and other planets' gravity and pressure variation. Probably lunar and solar alignment has the biggest regular influence, greatest when the Sun is at its closest and larger planets act in the same direction as the Sun. That probably accounts for Earth's magnetic field variation to a large degree. (Probably irrelevant but noteworthy, there is a very weak magnetic influence on ozone.) The sum of the gravity influences likely causes hot spot movement around the planet that may account for as yet undiscovered volcanic activity cyclicity, there are very likely many cycles. May also account for the regional variation in strength and direction of lines of force.

Of course I'm sixpence short of a bob to suggest such a thing as an expanded planet that is still expanding but it is a satisfying theory in too many ways to be ignored in favour of the fixed planet size notion.

Then we come to cyclical axial variation that ranges from weeks to millenia, and continental drift. Another time.

Hi Ian

This is an updated version by Piers Corbyn

CO2sceptic you wrote......

“Think of a freight train moving, or being "active", the journey is fairly constant with not too many collisions between the separate carriages, but when the train is stationary or "non active" each carriage will collide as the train starts to move.

Maybe a better version.....from Piers Corbyn

"The spin rate of the earth is generally being braked slightly by its interaction with the solar wind and as we get to a solar minimum this braking is less. That probably gives a sort of slow 'jolting effect on oceans and tectonic plates which might exacerbate earthquakes and tremors. We have to think of CHANGES in forces or changes in acceleration rather than simply forces or accelerations.

“Think of a train with its brakes on by a certain fixed amount - constant deceleration. You are sitting in your seat and the braking is thrusting you forward a bit but you have adjustyed for that and feel no discomfort. When the train comes to a stop this braking ends and you feel a jolt and you slump backwards into your seat as the force you provided to not fall forward pushes you back. Similarly when a train (or a plane) changes its acceleration forward you experience

Generally speaking in a train or plane plenty of jolts occur when they are hardly moving rather than moving at top speed.

In a similar fashion the oceans pressing against the continents or more precisely against some tectonic plates - experience jolts relative to the earth's main crust and core as the interaction with the solar wind changes as we get close to (or move away from) solar minimum.



From Ian

Piers' argument of the braking effect of the solar wind no doubt has substance. But not enough imho. The acceleration and deceleration must be so small and over an extended period as to be inconsequential considering the alternative activities that cause earthquakes such as
sea floor spreading.

( The Indonesian earthquake slowed the planet: "They also found the earthquake decreased the length of day by 2.68 microseconds. ... The quake also affected the Earth's shape. They found Earth's oblateness (flattening on the top and bulging at the equator) decreased by a small amount. It decreased about one part in 10 billion, continuing the trend of earthquakes making Earth less oblate" [I surmise that the planet's reducing oblateness may also be the cause of earthquakes.

So the consequences of that large event were small in tectonic terms. The planet absorbed the shock and dispersed the energy into the ocean, atmosphere and mantle. The solar wind effect must be much smaller than that.

A possible solar connection related to magnetism is whether solar wind affects the Earth's magnetic field. That may have more mileage in making a climate link. I read a paper that claimed the magnitude of the energy the field lost was calculated to be in the ballpark for the amount needed to raise the atmosphere T by .6 degrees C. Where did the energy go/how? In the solar polar reversal cycle, the energy of the solar wind must reduce. The planet's EMF doesn't flip every time the Sun's does (that would be interesting) but maybe when the change in solar energy is large such as we saw from the LIA to date perhaps then it causes the Earth's to flip.

One throwaway idea, the reduced magnetic suppression of the nuclear reaction could increase the heat produced by the core causing greater liquidity of the surrounding material. That would make it easier for the core to respond to tidal forces and the greater movement permitted could have tectonic consequences from the changes in the gravity influence of the core.

[Edit. Maybe add centrifugal influence from reducing friction.]


CO2sceptic, I found UV increasing since 2006 and before that pretty flat. I haven't worked out the ramifications yet. I think 2006 was the year ozone was found to be increasing and I saw somewhere a recent measured decrease in UV at the surface of around 6%. Probably Mon or Tue I will have time to do some more research and see if I can connect some dots. The big problem with trying to estimate ozone/UV influence is the lack of data on both. Frustrating. Ozone since the 80s and TOA UV since 2003 so far is all I can find. Obviously UV can show the opposite sign to TSI and TSI can be high even without activity.

Piers must suffer the same frustration!
Articles by Climate Realists and Topics

» Recently used highlighted

Useful links
  • » News articles may contain quotes, these are copyright to the respective publication which will be stated, along with a link to the source article where available.
  • » If you feel your copyright has been violated please contact us and the article will be removed or amended at your request.
Site Details
  • » Launched 15 May 2009
  • » Website Design by Mr Zippy
Climate Depot Feed
  • » Feed Error