The Ice Age Cometh! Forget Global Warming!

[Eboard10]

Another interesting article posted on What's Up With That, with data showing a consistent drop in North Atlantic water temperature since 2004, summer heat penetrating into the ocean at only half the depth it used to 10 years ago and with a general cooling of the North Atlantic Current by 1C since 2006 (of which 60% happened in the last 2 years alone), as well as snow seen in Germany in August at 2,000 metres altitude. The author correlates all these observations to the current decline in solar activity, as seen with the strong decline in solar radio flux, and suggesting the possibility that we're heading towards a Maunder minimum type event.

The North Atlantic: Ground Zero of Global Cooling
August 21, 2016
Guest essay by David Archibald

The warning signs have been there for some time now – persistent failures of the wheat crop in Norway for example. The North Atlantic is cooling. The cooling trend was evident at the time of an expedition to investigate this phenonemon three years ago. The rate of cooling has now steepened up since then based on the latest data collated by Professor Humlum of the University of Oslo. From that data set, this graph shows the heat loss since 2004 for the top 700 metres of the water column:

Figure 1: Monthly heat content anomaly in the uppermost 700 metres of the North Atlantic

As Figure 1 show, North Atlantic heat content peaked in 2004. The decline since the peak has been steeper than the rise. What would be the reason for 2004 being the peak year? Part of the answer may be that 2004 was the second peak of Solar Cycle 23 with a big increase in the proton flux. Another part of the answer may be that there was a big fall in the Ap Index in 2005 down to solar minimum-like levels followed, a couple of years later, by a discontinuity as the level fell through the floor of the established minimum level of activity. That is shown in this graph:

Figure 2: Ap Index 1932 – 2016

We might not care too much about the animals that live in the North Atlantic water column but the temperature of the surface is the main control on the climate of Europe. So what has that been doing?

Figure 3: Time series depth-temperature diagram along 59 N across the North Atlantic Current from 30° W to 0°W.

As Figure 3 from Professor Humlum’s work shows, summer heating is penetrating to half the depth it used to 10 years ago and in winter earlier this year sub-8°C water was at the surface for the first time in more than ten years. That cooling trend is quantified in the following graph.

Figure 4: Average temperature along 59° N, 30°-0°W, 0-800m depth

This is data from the main part of the North Atlantic Current. The average temperature has fallen 1.0°C from 2006 to 2016. That is a trend of 1.0°C per decade but with 60% of the cooling in the last two years. Europe’s climate has responded with snow down to 2,000 metres in August in Germany this year. And how much lower can the North Atlantic temperature go? The lowest point on Figure 1 was in 1973 during the 1970s cooling period and corresponds to a fall of a further 1.5°C. At the decadal trend since 2016, we would get there in 2031. At the trend of the last two years, we would get there in 2021. That is supported by what is happening to solar activity. Over those last two years the F10.7 flux has been in a steep downtrend:

Figure 5: F10.7 Flux 2014 – 2016

Figure 5 shows that the F10.7 flux is in a steep, orderly downtrend that will take it to the immutable floor of 64 about three years before solar minimum is due. After that comes Solar Cycle 25. Back in 2003, esteemed solar physicists Ken Schatten and Kent Tobiska warned that:

“The surprising result of these long-range predictions is a rapid decline in solar activity, starting with cycle #24. If this trend continues, we may see the Sun heading towards a “Maunder” type of solar activity minimum – an extensive period of reduced levels of solar activity.”

They got the decline of Solar Cycle 24 right and the North Atlantic cooled in response. If they get the “Maunder” part of their prediction correct too, then it will be some years before North Atlantic cooling bottoms out.

 

[angelburst29]

We might be dealing with "a Heat Dome" now, but it might be wise to plan for an equally abnormal Winter Arctic blast and purchase some sand bags, along with the Rock Salt. A few extra sturdy snow shovels, wouldn't hurt, either?

The signs seem to be pointing at this, so perhaps those and more things should be stocked; food being a big one.

Might want to put that on top - of "the things to do" list, Voyageur?

Summer snow rude awakening for these Canadians (Video)
https://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/snow-in-august-heres-where-in-canada/71378

Tuesday, August 23, 2016, 7:34 AM - As summer churns to an end with late August appearing on the horizon, it has started snowing in Canada.

No, it isn't the usual culprit of Nunavut, or anywhere else in our country's large swath of the Arctic, but rather Alberta, whose highest places are seeing some noticeable snow on the radar.

Flashes of blue on the archived radar map (shown below) are a rare and never too welcome sight in what's supposed to be a month known for heat and humidity.

The Weather Network meteorologist Matt Grinter says the snow is caused by the interaction of cold air with a system that brought more than 70 mm of rain to parts of Alberta.

Cold air aloft is brought into the region by an upper level low. Combine that with upsloping moisture from a low that has brought some northeasterly winds, and you have enough moisture hitting air that's just cold enough to result in snow, depending on how high up you are.

On Twitter, you can clearly see the snow from the webcam at Lake Louise.

Snow arrives same time as last year

Grinter also notes snow in Alberta in August is not impossible, and in fact, the upper elevation snows of Monday come exactly one day after Alberta saw its first snowfall last year, particularly for areas in and around Calgary.

Meanwhile, Calgary saw over 28 cm of snow in early September of 2014 that caused widespread damage. Over 30,000 homes were left without power, forcing officials to open up an their emergency operations centre.

 

[Laura]

This is data from the main part of the North Atlantic Current. The average temperature has fallen 1.0°C from 2006 to 2016. That is a trend of 1.0°C per decade but with 60% of the cooling in the last two years. Europe’s climate has responded with snow down to 2,000 metres in August in Germany this year. And how much lower can the North Atlantic temperature go? The lowest point on Figure 1 was in 1973 during the 1970s cooling period and corresponds to a fall of a further 1.5°C. At the decadal trend since 2016, we would get there in 2031. At the trend of the last two years, we would get there in 2021. That is supported by what is happening to solar activity. Over those last two years the F10.7 flux has been in a steep downtrend:

Figure 5: F10.7 Flux 2014 – 2016

Figure 5 shows that the F10.7 flux is in a steep, orderly downtrend that will take it to the immutable floor of 64 about three years before solar minimum is due. After that comes Solar Cycle 25. Back in 2003, esteemed solar physicists Ken Schatten and Kent Tobiska warned that:

“The surprising result of these long-range predictions is a rapid decline in solar activity, starting with cycle #24. If this trend continues, we may see the Sun heading towards a “Maunder” type of solar activity minimum – an extensive period of reduced levels of solar activity.”

They got the decline of Solar Cycle 24 right and the North Atlantic cooled in response. If they get the “Maunder” part of their prediction correct too, then it will be some years before North Atlantic cooling bottoms out.

Funny how they want to attribute what they are seeing to a Maunder Minimum type event and just not deal with a full-on Ice Age which is actually overdue.

"At the trend of the last two years, we would get there in 2021."

That's only a few years away. What if it accelerates even more?

 

[Ca.]

Funny how they want to attribute what they are seeing to a Maunder Minimum type event and just not deal with a full-on Ice Age which is actually overdue.
"At the trend of the last two years, we would get there in 2021."
That's only a few years away. What if it accelerates even more?

More Scientists Come Out Predicting Rapid Global Cooling 2016-2017 & Bravias Arc (207)- Aug 22, 2016
Adapt 2030

http://<iframe width="560" height="...Ps" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Exact Dates Given for Grand Solar Minimum Cooling Globally, IPCC Tries to Suppress Research
Published on Aug 20, 2016
Adapt 2030
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiIPBnZCmVk

Exact Dates Given for Grand Solar Minimum Cooling commencing Globally in a paper by Zharkova, Shepherd, Popova and Zharkov, then the IPCC Tried to Suppress Research by asking the Royal Astronomical Society to remove the findings through the groups of scientific organizations associated with the IPCC. So much research is out in the world about the commencing grand solar minimum, the the lack of government action must have an agenda behind it.

Exact Dates Given for Grand Solar Minimum Cooling Globally, IPCC Tries to Suppress Research
https://iceagenow.info/video-headed-ice-age-scientist/

Interview with Professor Valentina Zharkova

Published on Aug 9, 2016

Recent research by Professor Valentina Zharkova (Northumbria University) and colleagues has shed new light on the inner workings of the Sun.

The research suggests that the next three solar cycles will see solar activity reduce significantly into the middle of the century, producing conditions similar to those last seen in the 1600s – during the Maunder Minimum.

Some climate scientists have not welcomed the research and even tried to suppress the new findings.

http://<iframe width="560" height="...Pc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Dr Zharkova is a Professor in Mathematics at Northumbria University. She has a BSc/MSc in Applied Mathematics and Astronomy and a Ph.D. in Astrophysics.
https://www.northumbria.ac.uk/about-us/our-staff/z/professor-valentina-zharkova/

Edit:
Respectively added needed Quote

 

[angelburst29]

While highs reached 81 degrees in Denver Tuesday, on Pikes Peak, there was snow.

There is snow on Pikes Peak
http://www.9news.com/weather/there-is-snow-on-pikes-peak/305942640

Pikes Peak stands at 14,114 feet – a little bit higher in elevation than Denver’s 5,280 feet.

The earliest date of the first snowstorm in Denver? Sept. 3 (that was back in 1961). And for those of you new to the state, that means winter can start any time.

By the looks of this photo, it’s already started on Pikes Peak!

Below is our Pikes Peak Summit Cam, updated every minute. It is looking southeast towards Colorado Springs.
http://www.cograilway.com/webcam.asp

 

[Eol]

A study released by H. Svensmark and co-authors :

Solar activity has a direct impact on Earth's cloud cover


A team of scientists from the National Space Institute at the Technical University of Denmark (DTU Space) and the Racah Institute of Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has linked large solar eruptions to changes in Earth's cloud cover in a study based on over 25 years of satellite observations.

The solar eruptions are known to shield Earth's atmosphere from cosmic rays. However the new study, published in Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, shows that the global cloud cover is simultaneously reduced, supporting the idea that cosmic rays are important for cloud formation. The eruptions cause a reduction in cloud fraction of about 2 percent corresponding to roughly a billion tonnes of liquid water disappearing from the atmosphere.


Since clouds are known to affect global temperatures on longer timescales, the present investigation represents an important step in the understanding of clouds and climate variability.
"Earth is under constant bombardment by particles from space called galactic cosmic rays. Violent eruptions at the Sun's surface can blow these cosmic rays away from Earth for about a week. Our study has shown that when the cosmic rays are reduced in this way there is a corresponding reduction in Earth's cloud cover. Since clouds are an important factor in controlling the temperature on Earth our results may have implications for climate change", explains lead author on the study Jacob Svensmark of DTU.

Very energetic particles

These particles generate electrically charged molecules—ions—in Earth's atmosphere. Ions have been shown in the laboratory to enhance the formation of aerosols, which can serve as seeds for the formation of the cloud drops that make up a cloud. Whether this actually happens in the atmosphere, or only in the laboratory is a topic that has been investigated and debated for years.
When the large solar eruptions blow away the galactic cosmic rays before they reach Earth they cause a reduction in atmospheric ions of up to about 20 to -30 percent over the course of a week. So if ions affect cloud formation it should be possible to observe a decrease in cloud cover during events when the Sun blows away cosmic rays, and this is precisely what is done in this study.

The so-called 'Forbush decreases' of the cosmic rays have previously been linked to week-long changes in Earth's cloud cover but the effect has been debated at length in the scientific literature. The new study concludes that "there is a real impact of Forbush decreases on cloud microphysics" and that the results support the suggestion that "ions play a significant role in the life-cycle of clouds".

Arriving at that conclusion was, however, a hard endeavor; Very few strong Forbush decreases occur and their effect on cloud formation is expected to be close to the limit of detection using global atmospheric observations measured by satellites and land based stations. Therefore it was of the greatest importance to select the strongest events for study since they had to have the most easily detected effect. Determining this strength required combining data from about 130 stations in combination with atmospheric modeling.
This new method resulted in a list of 26 events in the period of 1987-2007 ranked according to ionization. This ranked list was important for the detection of a signal, and may also shed some light on why previous studies have arrived at varied conclusions, since they have relied on events that were not necessarily ranked high on the list.

Possible long term effect

The effect from Forbush decreases on clouds is too brief to have any impact on long-term temperature changes.
However since clouds are affected by short term changes in galactic cosmic radiation, they may well also be affected by the slower change in Solar activity that happens on scales from tens to hundreds of years, and thus play a role in the radiation budget that determines the global temperature.
The Suns contribution to past and future climate change may thus be larger than merely the direct changes in radiation, concludes the scientists behind the new study.

_http://phys.org/news/2016-08-solar-impact-earth-cloud.html

However since clouds are affected by short term changes in galactic cosmic radiation, they may well also be affected by the slower change in Solar activity that happens on scales from tens to hundreds of years, and thus play a role in the radiation budget that determines the global temperature.

Well, i would say why not decades or centuries if the link is clearly demonstrated.


While I always was very interested by the theory linking GCRs and the global cloud cover, I also always doubted about it because there were a lot of question marks about the work of Svensmark :


- personal data correction:

Svensmark and others pointed to an apparent correlation between low-altitude cloud cover and cosmic rays. But after 1995, the beguiling fit of Svensmark's graph depends on a "correction" of satellite data, that the satellite scientists themselves say this is not justified.

_https://www.cabrillo.edu/~rnolthenius/climate/Denialists/D-CosmicRays/index.html

Altough it can be justifed because ISCCP data seem to be flawed :

_http://www.aos.wisc.edu/~dvimont/Papers/Evan_etal_GL028083.pdf


- No visible effect on cloud cover during "Forbush decreases" in past studies.


But the recent research made by the CLOUD experiment indeed pointed out to a real effect on the nucleation rate by GCRs :

_http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7361/full/nature10343.html
_http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v533/n7604/full/nature17953.html

Also in some coherence with the recent study of Svensmark :

Cosmic rays, cloud condensation nuclei and clouds – a reassessment using MODIS data

Abstract. The response of clouds to sudden decreases in the flux of galactic cosmic rays (GCR) – Forbush decrease events – has been investigated using cloud products from the space-borne MODIS instrument, which has been in operation since 2000. By focusing on pristine Southern Hemisphere ocean regions we examine areas where we believe that a cosmic ray signal should be easier to detect than elsewhere. While previous studies have mainly considered cloud cover, the high spatial and spectral resolution of MODIS allows for a more thorough study of microphysical parameters such as cloud droplet size, cloud water content and cloud optical depth, in addition to cloud cover. Averaging the results from the 22 Forbush decrease events that were considered, no statistically significant correlations were found between any of the four cloud parameters and GCR, when autocorrelations were taken into account. Splitting the area of study into six domains, all of them have a negative correlation between GCR and cloud droplet size, in agreement with a cosmic ray – cloud coupling, but in only one of the domains (eastern Atlantic Ocean) was the correlation statistically significant. Conversely, cloud optical depth is mostly negatively correlated with GCR, and in the eastern Atlantic Ocean domain that correlation is statistically significant. For cloud cover and liquid water path, the correlations with GCR are weaker, with large variations between the different domains. When only the six Forbush decrease events with the largest amplitude (more than 10% decrease) were studied, the correlations fit the hypothesis slightly better, with 16 out of 24 correlations having the expected sign, although many of the correlations are quite weak. Introducing a time lag of a few days for clouds to respond to the cosmic ray signal the correlations tend to become weaker and even to change sign.

_http://www.gae.ucm.es/~pulsar/articles/master/clima/low-clouds_CR-6.pdf

For now I would not say that i'm convinced, but it's definitely a step forward.

 

[Ca.]

While highs reached 81 degrees in Denver Tuesday, on Pikes Peak, there was snow.

There is snow on Pikes Peak
http://www.9news.com/weather/there-is-snow-on-pikes-peak/305942640

Pikes Peak stands at 14,114 feet – a little bit higher in elevation than Denver’s 5,280 feet.

The earliest date of the first snowstorm in Denver? Sept. 3 (that was back in 1961). And for those of you new to the state, that means winter can start any time.

By the looks of this photo, it’s already started on Pikes Peak!

Below is our Pikes Peak Summit Cam, updated every minute. It is looking southeast towards Colorado Springs.
http://www.cograilway.com/webcam.asp

http://<iframe width="560" height="...i8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Ca.]

Sorry about that. Wrong thread.
Doe

 

[mabar]

A study released by H. Svensmark and co-authors :

Solar activity has a direct impact on Earth's cloud cover


A team of scientists from the National Space Institute at the Technical University of Denmark (DTU Space) and the Racah Institute of Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has linked large solar eruptions to changes in Earth's cloud cover in a study based on over 25 years of satellite observations.

The solar eruptions are known to shield Earth's atmosphere from cosmic rays. However the new study, published in Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, shows that the global cloud cover is simultaneously reduced, supporting the idea that cosmic rays are important for cloud formation. The eruptions cause a reduction in cloud fraction of about 2 percent corresponding to roughly a billion tonnes of liquid water disappearing from the atmosphere.


Since clouds are known to affect global temperatures on longer timescales, the present investigation represents an important step in the understanding of clouds and climate variability.
"Earth is under constant bombardment by particles from space called galactic cosmic rays. Violent eruptions at the Sun's surface can blow these cosmic rays away from Earth for about a week. Our study has shown that when the cosmic rays are reduced in this way there is a corresponding reduction in Earth's cloud cover. Since clouds are an important factor in controlling the temperature on Earth our results may have implications for climate change", explains lead author on the study Jacob Svensmark of DTU.

Very energetic particles

These particles generate electrically charged molecules—ions—in Earth's atmosphere. Ions have been shown in the laboratory to enhance the formation of aerosols, which can serve as seeds for the formation of the cloud drops that make up a cloud. Whether this actually happens in the atmosphere, or only in the laboratory is a topic that has been investigated and debated for years.
When the large solar eruptions blow away the galactic cosmic rays before they reach Earth they cause a reduction in atmospheric ions of up to about 20 to -30 percent over the course of a week. So if ions affect cloud formation it should be possible to observe a decrease in cloud cover during events when the Sun blows away cosmic rays, and this is precisely what is done in this study.

The so-called 'Forbush decreases' of the cosmic rays have previously been linked to week-long changes in Earth's cloud cover but the effect has been debated at length in the scientific literature. The new study concludes that "there is a real impact of Forbush decreases on cloud microphysics" and that the results support the suggestion that "ions play a significant role in the life-cycle of clouds".

Arriving at that conclusion was, however, a hard endeavor; Very few strong Forbush decreases occur and their effect on cloud formation is expected to be close to the limit of detection using global atmospheric observations measured by satellites and land based stations. Therefore it was of the greatest importance to select the strongest events for study since they had to have the most easily detected effect. Determining this strength required combining data from about 130 stations in combination with atmospheric modeling.
This new method resulted in a list of 26 events in the period of 1987-2007 ranked according to ionization. This ranked list was important for the detection of a signal, and may also shed some light on why previous studies have arrived at varied conclusions, since they have relied on events that were not necessarily ranked high on the list.

Possible long term effect

The effect from Forbush decreases on clouds is too brief to have any impact on long-term temperature changes.
However since clouds are affected by short term changes in galactic cosmic radiation, they may well also be affected by the slower change in Solar activity that happens on scales from tens to hundreds of years, and thus play a role in the radiation budget that determines the global temperature.
The Suns contribution to past and future climate change may thus be larger than merely the direct changes in radiation, concludes the scientists behind the new study.

Curious, at spaceweather.com gives -apparently with similar data, having the same graphic and linked to another study- The response of clouds and aerosols to cosmic ray decreases† _http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016JA022689/abstract -in which I do not understand much, but I read the article from FB spaceweather yesterday and was with the intention to post it here until I read your post Eol, I began to doubt to what I had read and was thinking that, perhpas I misunderstood it ... it seems to me there is another prespective, and or I am going to a confusion mode anyways ...

COSMIC RAYS INTENSIFY (http://spaceweather.com): For years, Spaceweather.com and the students of Earth to Sky Calculus have been using high-altitude helium balloons to monitor cosmic rays in the stratosphere over California. Their latest data show an increase of almost 13% since 2015.

Cosmic rays, which are accelerated toward Earth by distant supernova explosions and other violent events, can seed clouds, trigger lightning, and penetrate commercial airplanes. Furthermore, there are studies linking cosmic rays with cardiac arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death in the general population.
Why are cosmic rays intensifying? The main reason is the sun.

Researchers have long known that solar activity and cosmic rays have a yin-yang relationship. Consider the following:
Solar storm clouds such as coronal mass ejections (CMEs) sweep aside cosmic rays when they pass by Earth. During Solar Maximum, CMEs are abundant and cosmic rays are held at bay. Lately, however, solar activity has been very low. CMEs haven't been giving cosmic rays their usual "push back." As solar activity subsides, cosmic rays intensify.
Another reason could be a weakening of Earth's magnetic field, which helps protect us from deep-space radiation. Europe's constellation of SWARM satellites has recently shown that Earth's magnetic field is not as strong as it used to be: http://news.spaceweather.com/earths-magnetic-field-is-chan…/

What I understood was that comsic rays are intensifying because CME are reducing due to low activity of the Sun and the lower force from Earth's magnetic fiel, so cosmic rays are intensifying and those are seeding the clouds, and it correlates to what we are observing (?) more clouds, more storms, hail, rain, tornados etc ... and in your post it mentions that cosmic rays are reducing so "Earth's cloud cover" is reducing too, do not know if "Earth's cloud cover" would mean similar to seed cloud, though ...

What you do think Eol, or/and there may be members that understand better, since I am doubting myself if what I understood is what it is or it is not?

And there is also the metioning of the studies of linking cosmic rays with "cardiac arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death in the general population" and read also a interesting comment and since we are seeing an increase in "crazyness" not just in humans but animals as well, I put it here:

Jeff Miller: There are also strong correlations between cosmic rays and psychiatric hospital admissions for acute depression and psychotic episodes.
...
Jeff Miller To be more specific, solar energy particles (SEP) - a type of cosmic ray has been associated with increased psychiatric admissions.

- increased levels of SEP related to solar storms / CMEs / elevated solar winds has correlated with heightened anxiety, insomnia, mood alteration, and increases in psychiatric admissions (Persinger 1987)

- A study on the relationship between these fluctuations and depression found that hospital admissions of persons with a previous diagnosis of depression rose 36.2% during periods of solar disruption as compared with normal periods (Kay 1994).

- Raps, Stoupel, and Shimshoni (1992) established a strong correlation between numbers of first psychiatric admissions and solar disruption / increase in SEP.

- Kuleshova et al. (2001) documented that the average number of hospitalized patients with mental and cardiovascular diseases increases measurably during these fluctuations, and that the frequency of myocardial infarction, angina pectoris, and disruptions of cardial rhythm and brain blood circulation doubles. Zakharov and Tyrnov (2001)

- Tarquini, Perfetto, and Tarquini (1998) analyzed the relationship between these fluctuations and seasonal depression, and determined that terrestrial EMF fluctuations induced by solar activity, by disrupting the rhythms of the pineal gland, causes imbalances and disruptions of melatonin production, which have been closely linked to behavioral changes and mood disorders.

- Valery Feigin, MD at the Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand, discovered strong evidence connecting geomagnetic activity to increased risk for stroke (Medscape Medical News, 2014).

---

Zakharov, I.G., and O.F. Tyrnov. 2001. “The Effects of Solar Activity on Ill and Healthy People under Conditions of Nervous and Emotional Stresses.” Advances in Space Research 28 (4): 685-690.

Tarquini, B., F. Perfetto, and R. Tarquini. 1998. “Melatonin and Seasonal Depression.” Recenti Progressi in Medicina 89 (7-8): 395–403.

Solanki, S. K., I. G. Usoskin, B. Kromer, M. Schüssler, and J. Beer. 2004. “Unusual Activity of the Sun During Recent Decades Compared to the Previous 11,000 Years.” Nature 431: 1084–87.

Raps, A., E. Stoupel, and M. Shimshoni. 1992. “Geophysical Variables and Behavior: Solar Activity and Admission of Psychiatric Inpatients.” Perceptual and Motor Skills 449-450.

Persinger, M. A. 1987. “Geopsychology and Geopsychopathology: Mental Processes and Disorders Associated with Geochemical and Geophysical Factors.” Experientia 43 (1): 92-104

Mukherjee, Saumitra. 2008. “Cosmic Influence on the Sun-Earth Environment.” Sensors 8: 7736–52.

Kuleshova, V. P., S. A. Pulinets, E. A. Sazanova, and A. M. Kharchenko. 2001. “Biotropic Effects of Geomagnetics Storms and Their Seasonal Variations.” Biofizika 46 (5): 930-934.

Kay, R. W. 1994. Geomagnetic Storms: Association with Incidence of Depression as Measured by Hospital Admission. British Journal of Psychiatry. 164: 403-409.

There's also some interesting research suggesting that fluctuating solar activity (CMEs, solar winds, solar storms) disturb Earth's electromagnetic field, and it's been shown that fluctuations in electromagnetic fields outside the human body have disruptive effects on the electromagnetic fields of body and brain. Controlled tests on humans subjects that were exposed to a raising and lowering of electromagnetic energy in a lab setting showed clear changes in mood, thought processes, and physcial coordination, ranging from subtle to extreme. It would follow then that disturbances in Earth's electromagnetic field due to SEP interference, CMEs, solar winds, solar storms, would in turn have an effect on the electromagnetic fields of Earth's biota, including humans...both body and brain.

You might also find some of the research by Alexey Dmitriev and Kenrik Svensmark interesting re: the relationship between solar activity and terrestrial systems (climate, seismic, volcanic) / Earth's biota.

 

[Pierre]

What I understood was that comsic rays are intensifying because CME are reducing due to low activity of the Sun and the lower force from Earth's magnetic fiel, so cosmic rays are intensifying and those are seeding the clouds, and it correlates to what we are observing (?) more clouds, more storms, hail, rain, tornados etc

and in your post it mentions that cosmic rays are reducing so "Earth's cloud cover" is reducing too, do not know if "Earth's cloud cover" would mean similar to seed cloud, though ...

Maybe the confusion comes from the fact that the cosmic ray / cloud cover correlation is depicted from two opposite angles:

Low solar activity -> more cosmic rays -> more clouds (see your 1st quote at the beginning of this message)
High solar activity -> less cosmic ray -> less clouds (see your 2nd quote just above)

 

[mabar]

Maybe the confusion comes from the fact that the cosmic ray / cloud cover correlation is depicted from two opposite angles:

Low solar activity -> more cosmic rays -> more clouds (see your 1st quote at the beginning of this message)
High solar activity -> less cosmic ray -> less clouds (see your 2nd quote just above)

Thanks Pierre, I realized that I did not want to read the word "when" here: "Our study has shown that when the cosmic rays are reduced in this way there is a corresponding reduction in Earth's cloud cover" to what spaceweather states that are rising ...

 

[Ca.]

Colorado Professors Kick 'Deniers' Out - "We Will Not, At Any Time, Debate Climate Change" Aug 31, 2016
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-31/colorado-professors-tell-climate-change-deniers-get-out-we-will-not-any-time-debate-

Professors Laroche, Haggren and Skahill of the University of Colorado - Colorado Springs will not allow you to invade their man-made climate change "safe space" and if you don't like it then you can get out. According to The College Fix, that is the response students recently received from the progressive teacher trio after "expressing concern" for their success in a course that refused to debate climate change.

The full email from the teachers is posted below but here are a couple of the highlights:

"We have received several emails from students expressing concern for their success in our course given their personal perspectives on climate change."



“The point of departure for this course is based on the scientific premise that human induced climate change is valid and occurring. We will not, at any time, debate the science of climate change, nor will the ‘other side’ of the climate change debate be taught or discussed in this course. Opening up a debate that 98% of climate scientists unequivocally agree to be a non-debate would detract from the central concerns of environment and health addressed in this course.”



“… If you believe this premise to be an issue for you, we respectfully ask that you do not take this course, as there are options within the Humanities program for face to face this semester and online next.”

Here is the full email from the professors of HUM 3990 SECOL1 - Master - Special Topics in Humanities: Climate Change (click picture for a larger image.)

Would it be inappropriate to share Nasa's findings that Antarctica's ice sheet has actually been growing larger rather than shrinking (see "Another Inconvenient Truth? New NASA Study Finds Antarctica Is Gaining Ice")?

Sun Weakens Further with More Abnormal Cold Weather Events | Mini Ice Age 2015-2035 (212)
Adapt 2030
Published on Aug 31, 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnAUC5m2i0w

August is still not over but more northern hemisphere snows appear over Russia and USA, with volcanic eruptions on a 100 year cycle in Iceland along with early arrival of Northern Lights in August.

 

[Eboard10]

And there is also the metioning of the studies of linking cosmic rays with "cardiac arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death in the general population" and read also a interesting comment and since we are seeing an increase in "crazyness" not just in humans but animals as well, I put it here:

Jeff Miller: There are also strong correlations between cosmic rays and psychiatric hospital admissions for acute depression and psychotic episodes.

On that topic, Robert O. Becker talks quite extensively towards the end of his book The Body Electric about the impact of geomagnetic storms and cosmic rays on the human body's direct current system, as well as the effect of EM radiation on our health, and this already back in the 80s. Here's an excerpt from his book:

Howard's reputation got us access to the records of state psychiatric hospitals, giving us a sample large enough to be statistically useful. We matched the admissions of over twenty-eight thousand patients at eight hospitals against sixty-seven magnetic storms over the previous four years. The relationship was there: Significantly more persons were signed in to the psychiatric services just after magnetic disturbances than when the field was stable. [..]

Next we looked for the same type of influence in patients already hospitalized. We selected a dozen schizophrenics who were scheduled to remain in the VA hospital for the next few months with no changes in treatment. We asked the ward nurses to fill out a standard evaluation of their behavior once every eight-hour shift. Then we correlated the results with cosmic ray measurements taken every two hours from government measuring stations in Ontario and Colorado. Since magnetic storms were generally accompanied by a decrease in the cosmic radiation reaching the earth, we thought we might find changes in the patients' actions and moods during these declines. We decided to use cosmic rays instead of direct reports of the magnetic field strength because of problems in distinguishing between magnetic storms and other variations in the earth's field.

The nurses reported various behavior changes in almost all the subjects one or two days after cosmic ray decreases. [...]

 

[Pierre]

Opening up a debate that 98% of climate scientists unequivocally agree to be a non-debate would detract from the central concerns of environment and health addressed in this course.

Even if this 98% (or 97%) figure was true, the objective of science should be the Truth not the dictatorship of the majority. In any case, the above mentioned percentage is quite remote from reality as shown in the following article:

The 97 Percent Solution

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle

Unable to address Texas senator Ted Cruz’s questions about “the Pause” — the apparent global-warming standstill, now almost 19 years long — at Tuesday’s meeting of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight, Sierra Club president Aaron Mair, after an uncomfortable pause of his own, appealed to authority: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists concur and agree that there is global warming and anthropogenic impact,” he stated multiple times.

The relevant exchange begins at 1:39 (though the whole segment is worth watching): The myth of an almost-unanimous climate-change consensus is pervasive. Last May, the White House tweeted: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.”

A few days later, Secretary of State John Kerry announced, “Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists tell us this is urgent.” “Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists” say no such thing. There are multiple relevant questions:
(1) Has the earth generally warmed since 1800? (An overwhelming majority of scientists assent to this.)
(2) Has that warming been caused primarily by human activity?
And, if (1) and (2), is anthropogenic global warming a problem so significant that we ought to take action?

In 2004, University of California-San Diego professor Naomi Oreskes reported that, of 928 scientific abstracts from papers published by refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, “75% . . . either explicitly or implicitly accept[ed] the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.” Also remarkably, the papers chosen excluded several written by prominent scientists skeptical of that consensus.

Furthermore, the claims made in abstracts — short summaries of academic papers — often differ from those made in the papers themselves. And Oreskes’s analysis did not take up whether scientists who subscribe to anthropogenic global warming think the phenomenon merits changes in public policy.

The “97 percent” statistic first appeared prominently in a 2009 study by University of Illinois master’s student Kendall Zimmerman and her adviser, Peter Doran. Based on a two-question online survey, Zimmerman and Doran concluded that “the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific bases of long-term climate processes” — even though only 5 percent of respondents, or about 160 scientists, were climate scientists.

In fact, the “97 percent” statistic was drawn from an even smaller subset: the 79 respondents who were both self-reported climate scientists and had “published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.” These 77 scientists agreed that global temperatures had generally risen since 1800, and that human activity is a “significant contributing factor.”

A year later, William R. Love Anderegg, a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to determine that “97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC [anthropogenic climate change] outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” The sample size did not much improve on Zimmerman and Doran’s: Anderegg surveyed about 200 scientists.

Surely the most suspicious “97 percent” study was conducted in 2013 by Australian scientist John Cook — author of the 2011 book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand and creator of the blog Skeptical Science (subtitle: “Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism.”). In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a position” is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent! When David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook’s study, he found that “only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” endorsed what Cook claimed. Several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted.

“Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain,” Legates concluded. RELATED: Scientists Don’t Actually Know What’s Causing ‘Extreme Weather’ Studies showing a wider range of opinion often go unremarked.

A 2008 survey by two German scientists, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, found that a significant number of scientists were skeptical of the ability of existing global climate models to accurately predict global temperatures, precipitation, sea-level changes, or extreme weather events even over a decade; they were far more skeptical as the time horizon increased. Most did express concerns about global warming and a desire for “immediate action to mitigate climate change” — but not 97 percent.

A 2012 poll of American Meteorological Society members also reported a diversity of opinion. Of the 1,862 members who responded (a quarter of the organization), 59 percent stated that human activity was the primary cause of global warming, and 11 percent attributed the phenomenon to human activity and natural causes in about equal measure, while just under a quarter (23 percent) said enough is not yet known to make any determination. Seventy-six percent said that warming over the next century would be “very” or “somewhat” harmful, but of those, only 22 percent thought that “all” or a “large” amount of the harm could be prevented “through mitigation and adaptation measures.”

And according to a study of 1,868 scientists working in climate-related fields, conducted just this year by the PBL Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency, three in ten respondents said that less than half of global warming since 1951 could be attributed to human activity, or that they did not know. Given the politics of modern academia and the scientific community, it’s not unlikely that most scientists involved in climate-related studies believe in anthropogenic global warming, and likely believe, too, that it presents a problem. However, there is no consensus approaching 97 percent. A vigorous, vocal minority exists. The science is far from settled.

Unfortunately, this article fails to address one of the major bias of those surveys. A vast majority of surveys focus on papers published in peer-review journals.

The problem being that political and financial agendas often prevail over the search for Truth in the funding and publishing of research. If the funding and publishing processes favor 'warmists', it's no wonder that an artificially high percentage of scientists and papers appear to support the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.

 

[Eol]

And there is also the metioning of the studies of linking cosmic rays with "cardiac arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death in the general population" and read also a interesting comment and since we are seeing an increase in "crazyness" not just in humans but animals as well, I put it here:

Jeff Miller: There are also strong correlations between cosmic rays and psychiatric hospital admissions for acute depression and psychotic episodes.
...
Jeff Miller To be more specific, solar energy particles (SEP) - a type of cosmic ray has been associated with increased psychiatric admissions.

Also the study that I has shared speak about Galactic cosmic rays (GCR) and not SEP which are often related as cosmic rays. Thus we can't extrapolate this findings in the field of the possible unknow effects of GCR on the population.

Unfortunately, this article fails to address one of the major bias of those surveys. A vast majority of surveys focus on papers published in peer-review journals.

The problem being that political and financial agendas often prevail over the search for Truth in the funding and publishing of research. If the funding and publishing processes favor 'warmists', it's no wonder that an artificially high percentage of scientists and papers appear to support the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.

Very true. And for those who try to explore the subject through different aspects (solar, ocean oscillations etc...), they very often have to stamp the conclusion's paper with the "global warming induced by man" mark in order to be credited and pursue their work.