: Sun Cycles and Something Called a Photon Belt...05/14/01
: by Mitch Battros (ECTV)

: "...implies some underlying mechanism within the
: magnetar is driving events and that they
: are not totally random"

Fire and Ice
Robert Frost

Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire

I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To know that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.

The following information of course brings up the question: Is the crisis of ozone depletion( due to greenhouse gases) real or a hoax? If it is a FABRICATION of sorts, then why make up such things?

Not that we need any new quandries to spin around the wound-up May pole. It would be nice to find a set of correlations that agree and correspond with what the public is being told. Maybe we can do that, if we look long and hard enough at what is being put out into the land of information, and listen carefully to the moments when nothing seems to make sense. In the cacaphony of confusion there are points of rhyme that rise like cymbals above the frey...

The sun source seems to be one thing we all share.

Solar Activity: A Dominant Factor in Climate Dynamics

http://www.john-daly.com/solar/solar.htm

Dr Theodor Landscheidt
Schroeter Institute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity
Nova Scotia, Canada

“Solar Constant” Variations in the 11-Year Sunspot Cycle and Climatic Effects

Atmospheric circulation, the cause of weather, is driven by the sun’s energy.  Climate is the integral of weather over periods of more than a year. This integral also depends on the flux of solar energy. The same applies to variations in the energy flux caused by the sun’s varying activity. Satellite data show that the “solar constant” S is variable. The solar irradiance decreased from the sunspot maximum 1979 to the minimum 1986, increased again on the way to the next maximum in the 11-year sunspot cycle, and decreased anew in the descending phase. This came as a surprise as it is plausible that the dark sunspots with their strong magnetic fields impede the free flux of energy from the sun’s interior to the outside. Yet P. V. Foukal and J. Lean [22] have shown that bright faculae in the vicinity of sunspots increase even more than sunspots when the activity grows stronger, so that an irradiance surplus is established.

[snip]

Those scientists who spread anxiety in the eighties by predicting climate catastrophes cannot plead that at this time there were not any publications pointing to a relation between solar activity and climate that had to be taken seriously. The relationship in Figure 4 was presented at the international climate symposium “Weather and Climate Responses to Solar Variations” in Boulder, Colorado, as early as 1982 [55]. The plot shows a temperature time series after H. H. Lamb and C. D. Schönwiese at the bottom, radiocarbon data after J. E. Eddy [16] — proxy data reflecting solar activity — covering the interval 1000 to 1950 at the top, and in the middle data I had derived from a semiquantitative model of cyclic solar activity. S and M mark the Spoerer minimum and the Maunder minimum of sunspot activity, while O points to the medieval climate optimum which coincided with very strong solar activity. The synchronism of these three time series, covering 950 years, extends the connection elaborated by Friis-Christensen and Lassen 550 years farther back into the past and opens a possibility of long-range forecasts, as the data in the second curve are based on calculations that can be extended far into the future. On this basis, I forecasted, in 1982, that we should expect declining temperatures after 1990 and probably a new Little Ice Age around 2030. In further papers I specified this prediction [58, 59, 63]. I also expected considerably weaker sunspot activity after 1990. The slowly ascending new sunspot cycle, which started in May 1996, seems to follow the predicted trend.

[snip]

The most convincing argument yet, supporting a strong impact of the sun’s activity on climate change, is a direct connection between cloud coverage and cosmic rays, discovered by H. Svensmark and E. Friis-Christensen [111] in 1996. It is shown in Figure 6. 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.

[cloud cover expanded by 1%, hmmm...anybody else thinking what I'm thinking?]

The thin curve in Figure 6 presents the monthly mean counting rates of neutrons measured by the ground-based monitor in Climax, Colorado (right scale). This is an indirect measure of the strength of galactic and solar cosmic rays. The thick curve plots the 12-month running average of the global cloud cover expressed as change in percent (left scale). It is based on homogeneous observations made by geostationary satellites over the oceans. The two curves show a close correlation. The correlation coefficient is r = 0.95.

Short-range variations in the intensity of cosmic rays, caused by energetic solar eruptions, have the same effect, though shorter. The plot shows that strong cosmic rays go along with a larger cloud cover, whereas weak cosmic rays shrink the cloud cover. The global cloud coverage diminished from its peak at the end of 1986 to its bottom in the middle of 1990 by more than 3%. According to observations by V. Ramanathan, B. R. Barkstrom, and E. F. Harrison [91], clouds have a net cooling effect of -17 W/m2 . Svensmark and Friis-Christensen [111] conclude 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.

There is also a physical explanation of the effect: the secondary ions produced by the cosmic rays serve as condensation nuclei with hygroscopic properties that enhance the formation of clouds [4, 15, 23]. Meanwhile, H. Svensmark [112] has extended his investigation that now covers the interval 1980 to 1996. As before, the correlation between cloud cover and cosmic rays is very close. Indirect measurements of the intensity of cosmic rays, which register myons instead of neutrons, go back to 1937. When H. Svensmark [112] compared these data with global temperature in the Northern Hemisphere, he again found a strong correlation which indicates that the connection between cosmic rays, cloud cover, and global temperature is real.

The primary cause of the solar modulation of cosmic rays is not the level of sunspot activity, but the varying strength of the solar wind. This supersonic outflow of plasma originates in the very hot corona of the sun and carries ionized particles and magnetic field lines from the sun. While it is expanding towards the boundary of the solar system, cosmic ray particles interacting with it lose energy. When the solar wind blows heavily, cosmic rays are weak, and when the solar wind is in a lull, cosmic rays become strong. The highest velocities in the solar wind are caused by energetic solar eruptions and coronal holes. Strong eruptions (flares and eruptive prominences) avoid sunspot maxima and even occur close to sunspot minima. So sunspots are not a good indicator of solar wind strength [65]. As cosmic rays, which have such a strong impact on cloud cover, are strongly modulated by eruptional features of the sun’s activity, the solar contribution to climate change can no longer be considered negligible. This is all the more so as the already described changes in irradiance have an additional effect.

D. Rind and J. Overpeck [93] have shown that at least half of the rise in temperature since the end of the Little Ice Age can be attributed to the parallel rise in the sun’s irradiance. 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.".  E. S. Posmentier, W. H. Soon, and S. L. Baliunas [88, 107] eventually derive from a model based on the same solar factors as in the Hoyt-Schatten-model that 78% of the rise in temperature between 1885 and 1987 can be explained by the sun’s varying irradiance. An additional statistical experiment corroborates this result, though it omits the Svensmark effect and other solar-terrestrial relationships which are independent from irradiance. There is not much room left for the anthropogenic greenhouse effect. H. N. Priem [90] aptly remarks:

“Recent studies show that solar variability rather than changing CO pressure is an important, probably the dominant climate forcing factor ... The current and anticipated fleet of spacecraft devoted to the study of solar and solar-terrestrial physics will therefore probably prove to have more bearing on the understanding and forecasting of climate change than the orchestrated assessments by politically motivated international panels biased towards global warming exclusively by the enhanced greenhouse effect.”

The discovery by Svensmark and Friis-Christensen highlights the IPCC objection (that exogenic factors are energetically too weak to have an impact on global temperature), as pointing in the wrong direction. Primary cosmic rays, which regulate cloud coverage, inject a total energy into the atmosphere equal to the intensity of starlight in the night skies [23]. J. G. Roederer [95] comes closer to reality with his remark:

“The energy argument, however, is not valid for highly nonlinear, complex systems such as the coupled atmosphere-ocean-cryosphere-biosphere. It is well known that complex systems can behave chaotically, i.e. follow very different paths after the smallest change in initial or boundary conditions, or in response to the smallest perturbation. In a highly nonlinear system with large reservoirs of latent energy such as the atmosphere-ocean-biosphere, global redistributions of energy can be triggered by very small inputs, a process that depends far more on their spatial and temporal pattern than on their magnitude.”

[Drought and the "Hand" of God?

The paper continues to make great correlation (and incredible sense!), finding our favorite ratio (the one that mirrors sel-organization) and a sacred geometry. We would expect this from the truth.]

Figure 10 which shows the Palmer Drought Index for the U.S.A. The vertical axis measures the percentage of area covered by drought. The arrows designate consecutive epochs of BFSs and BFTs. Prior to the big hand start 1933, indicated by an open triangle, the starts of big fingers (S) coincided with drought maxima and the tips (T) with minima. After BHS 1933 the correlation with the big finger phases as such continued, but a phase reversal changed the rhythmic pattern. Now BFTs coincided with drought peaks and BFSs with minima. The new rhythm has been stable since 1933. There is a good chance that it will continue until the next BHS in 2111. Farmers in the U.S.A. may expect wet climate around the next BFS in 2007.

Yet, what is the meaning of those black circles in Figure 10 which alternately go along with drought maxima and minima and are also subjected to a phase reversal? They mark the Golden section between BFSs and BFTs. The five-fold symmetry in the dynamics of the sun’s oscillation about the center of mass of the solar system, visible in Figure 8, establishes a relationship between the sun’s motion and the Golden section, as this remarkable proportion is closely related to the number 5 [45]. To show this intimate connection, all of the corners of a regular pentagon (the fundamental geometrical representation of the number five ) are connected by diagonals. A five-pointed star emerges, a pentagram, the intersecting lines of which form a complex web of Golden sections. Within this star a new pentagram appears that contains a smaller star with further Golden section divisions, and so on, in an infinite fractal sequence.

As illustrated in Figure 11, the Golden section divides a frame structure like a line segment, a surface, a cycle, or any other delimited feature so that the ratio of the whole to the larger part (major) equals the ratio of the larger part to the smaller one (minor). Point G represents the irrational Golden Number
G = 0.618... It divides the unit height of the temple into major (0.618...) and minor (0.3819...). To find the major of a line segment, a cycle etc., it has to be multiplied by 0.618. Multiplication by 0.382 yields the minor. As the fundamental oscillation of the sun about CM depends on the masses and the positions of the giant planets, the relationship with the Golden section extends to the whole solar system. A. N. Kolmogorov [47], V. I. Arnol’d [1], and J. Moser [79] have proven theoretically, that the stability of the solar system hinges on the Golden section. This is crucial, as we know from publications by G. J. Sussman and J. Wisdom [110] as well as J. Laskar [67] that the orbits of all planets are chaotic. In my paper “The Cosmic Function of the Golden Section” [64] I have shown in practice how the Golden section, which stands for stability in polar opposition to instability, keeps the chaotic planetary orbits stable. The mean of the ratios of the perihelion distances of neighbouring planets from Mercury to Pluto, including the mean radius vector of the planetoids, turns out to be very close to the Golden number G. The difference between this mean and G is as small as 0.002. Fivefold quantities have deep roots in Nature. There are not four, but five physical forces. We merely have forgotten that electromagnetism is composed of different forces. First Maxwell unified electricity and magnetism and later on electromagnetism and the weak force was unified to constitute the electro-weak force [44].

[snip]

A ubiquitous notion in present day science is the term fractal coined by B. B. Mandelbrot. A fractal is a geometrical shape whose complex structure is such that magnification or reduction by a given factor reproduces the original object. Self-similarity on different scales is a pre-eminent feature of fractals. The solar cycles derived from the sun’s motion about the center of mass form such a fractal. The big fingers in big hands contain small hands with small fingers (SF). This becomes apparent by further amplification. Figure 15 shows the 3-year running variance of the sun’s orbital angular momentum. The circled numbers at the top mark epochs of BFTs. Tips of small fingers (SFT) are indicated by small numbers. Fat arrows and small triangles point to starts of big and small fingers. The vertical dotted line marks the initial phase of a big hand in 1933. The theoretical mean length of cycles of small fingers is
178.8 years / 5 / 5 = 7.2 years. Yet small fingers show a higher degree of “morphological” anomalies. There are sometimes hands that have only three or four fully developed fingers. There is a wider range of deviations from the mean length of small finger cycles. However, all of these variations can be computed and predicted.