NASA HAS BEEN WARNING OF A GRAND SOLAR MINIMUM (GSM) FOR THE PAST DECADE
NASA has been warning of a Grand Solar Minimum (GSM) for the past decade-or-so, and says the sun could be in a GSM phase for 10% to 30% of the time. However, the modern AGW dogma has stopped the agency short of drawing a connection between reduced solar output and “ice age” type weather events.
The sun’s output is not constant–despite what the IPCC would have you believe. Its emissions are modulated by its planets (namely conjunctions of Saturn, Jupiter, Earth and Venus) due to the interacting gravitational effects, and also by internal mechanisms.
NASA says it is able to predict sunspot numbers for the next cycle from magnetic activity of the sun hundreds of thousands of kilometres below its surface. For many years now (since at least 2010), the agency has believed that this deep activity is so weak that there may be very few sunspots in the next solar cycle (25): “Indeed, the sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now. There is evidence of a long-term weakening trend in the magnetic field strength of sunspots. Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory predict that by the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives, magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Independent lines of research involving helioseismology and surface polar fields tend to support their conclusion”.
Sunspot activity during a Grand Solar Minimum plays a significant role in producing extreme “ice-age” type cold weather events in the Northern Hemisphere while, paradoxically, at the same time causes Arctic regions to become warmer — this chimes with what we’re seeing today, and also neatly ties-in with NASA’s ‘Maunder Minimum Temperature Reconstruction Map’:
And that’s not to say that Grand Solar Minimums have no impact in the Southern Hemisphere, but there are few issues. Water being a heat sink is one, and because the Southern Hemisphere is 81% oceans and lakes, changes in heat energy from the sun (or any other source) will have less effect than it does its northern cousin which is 61% water. In addition, the northern hemisphere has more than double the land mass of the southern hemisphere at 30 degrees latitude, more than 10 times at 40 degrees, and around 28 times the land mass of the southern hemisphere at 50 degrees. At 60 degrees there is no land in the southern hemisphere but about 61% of the northern hemisphere is covered by land. Because of these differences between the hemispheres it doesn’t make sense to compare any climate change in Europe, North America, Northern Asia and the Mediterranean countries with any climate change that might be occurring in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and South America. This is partly why the term “global warming” is so disingenuous: to talk about climate change in a global context is quite misleading as the leads and lags in the climatic effects of small temperature changes vary enormously from region to region. These lags, for example, might be very short in a landlocked region like Switzerland to decades on an island like Tonga in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.
The reduction in solar output during a GSM has also been found to increase the risks of large earthquakes and powerful volcanic eruptions–the latter can exaggerate these “ice-age” type cold weather events by releasing sun-shading particulates into the stratosphere. This uptick in seismic and volcanic activity is thought to be caused by an influx of Cosmic Rays (allowed to enter Earth’s atmosphere via a reduction in solar wind) which in turn heat the muons in silica-rich magma.
The political agenda of the day may be preventing NASA from linking a big drop in solar activity with falling global average temperatures, but they do indicate the complexity of the issue in a recent Sun-Climate report: “Understanding the sun-climate connection requires a breadth of expertise in fields such as plasma physics, solar activity, atmospheric chemistry and fluid dynamics, energetic particle physics, and even terrestrial history. No single researcher has the full range of knowledge required to solve the problem.”
The sun’s complex “top down” effect on climate is, basically, due to its relatively variable output of UV spectrum photons. The dynamic equilibrium and the heat of the air in the ozone layer are affected by long term relative changes in the photon emissions of the sun across the UV spectrum and the proton and electron emissions that arrive via the solar wind. When relatively low emissions of EUV –compared to UVA and UVB– occur then less ozone is formed and the temperature of the stratosphere and upper troposphere reduces.
NOAA’s Isaac Held took this one step further. He described how loss of ozone in the stratosphere could alter the dynamics of the atmosphere below it: “The cooling of the polar stratosphere associated with loss of ozone increases the horizontal temperature gradient near the tropopause [and] this alters the flux of angular momentum by mid-latitude eddies. [Angular momentum is important because] the angular momentum budget of the troposphere controls the surface westerlies. In other words, solar activity felt in the upper atmosphere can, through a complicated series of influences, push surface storm tracks off course.”
This is a key point.
Held is saying that the jet streams are altered due to temperature changes in the polar stratosphere and it is these altered jet streams that affect the tracks of storms and, by implication, other weather systems. As often discussed on Electroverse, low solar activity is clearly impacting the jet streams: reverting their usual tight ZONAL (east-to-west) flow to a wavy MERIDIONAL (north-to-south) flow:
This (the sun-climate) is a painfully complicated issue, and no scientists on the planet has all the answers. I certainly don’t, but what I’m offering you is a version of events far closer to the truth than today’s politically driven dogma.
Increasing CO2 is not the cause of the so-called ‘climate breakdown’ we’re experiencing — no, the truth lies in the historically low solar activity we’re currently receiving, the truth lies in the Grand Solar Minimum.
Both NOAA and NASA appear to agree, if you read between the lines, with NOAA saying we’re entering a ‘full-blown’ Grand Solar Minimum in the late-2020s, and NASA seeing this upcoming solar cycle (25) as “the weakest of the past 200 years”, with the agency correlating previous solar shutdowns to prolonged periods of global cooling here.
Prepare for the COLD— learn the facts, relocate if need be, and grow your own.
Social Media channels are restricting Electroverse’s reach — Twitter are purging followers, and Facebook are labeling posts as “false”. Be sure to subscribe to receive new post notifications by email (the box is located in the sidebar >>> or scroll down if on mobile).
The site receives ZERO funding, and never has. So any way you can, help us spread the message so others can survive and thrive in the coming times.
Grand Solar Minimum + Pole Shift
The post NASA has been warning of a Grand Solar Minimum (GSM) for the past Decade appeared first on Electroverse.