The Ice Age Cometh! Forget Global Warming!

[Eol]

Thank you Regulattor. I didn't know this phenomenon.

Here is a portion of an article translated into English by a translator :

Stratospheric sudden warming


Sometimes the vortex air heats up in circumstances other than those governing normal building cycle - destruction of the vortex. These phenomena, abbreviated SSW (Sudden Stratospheric Warming) see the vortex air warm by several tens of degrees in the space of a few days, resulting in a massive vortex of destabilization and upheaval of stratospheric winds that depend on it. It should nevertheless distinguish two types of SSW by importance:

- The SSW minors who have a limited impact on the dynamics of the vortex.
- Major SSW who manage to permanently change the entire operation of the vortex to move or do explode into several lobes.

These SSW to stay simple, due to forcings from the troposphere or the mesosphere. Considering the troposphere, we need to incorporate the notion of Rossby wave. These waves are formed by the corrugations of the jet stream which delimits the tropospheric polar vortex its environment. When a wave of great importance advects a powerful breath of hot air towards the pole, energy and transported to the polar regions can affect the stratosphere as far as this energy is sufficiently large. The stratospheric vortex of air starts to warm up brutally from its periphery, several tens of degrees in the space of a few days. But we have seen that the thermal winds dependent on the temperature gradient between the intra- and extra air vortex-vortex air. Given that the gradient is decreased due to intra-vortex air warming, thermal winds decrease in strength, the stratospheric vortex enters an unstable phase. Two events can then occur: a motion event or division event.


Event movement or displacement event


During the displacement event, the warming of the polar stratosphere is not enough to pop the vortex. This is simply driven by a stratospheric high pressure that tends to take its place at the pole. The consequences of displacement events are less important than that of a splitting event which we will discuss in the next section.

The animation below is a forecast made by the GFS model December 27, 2012 for a period from January 3 to 7, 2013. It shows the wave "hot" attacking the vortex (blue - purple) from Siberia. The latter is ejected from its usual quarters and pushed Europe while weakening. A week after this modeling, many winter offensive and failover tropospheric air stream operated on the Old Continent. We shall return to the impacts of a disruption of the polar vortex.

_http://shrani.si/f/2S/CQ/4OuojmzW/strat.gif

Here is a direct link to track the phenomenon : _http://www.meteociel.fr/modeles/gfse_cartes.php?&ech=6&mode=10&carte=1

According to forecasts, we can expect this kind of scenario in the coming days with a likely drop in temperature in western Europe.

Event division or splitting event


The splitting event is the most extreme phenomenon: the warm impulse eventually explode the vortex into two lobes. Therefore, the circulation of stratospheric winds is completely disturbed, they will eventually stop and even change direction.

The image below shows a splitting event in January 2013. The hot drive, anticyclonic, invaded the pole and has shattered the vortex into two lobes, one of them laying on the near Atlantic, resulting profound changes in stratospheric and tropospheric circulations in the Northern Hemisphere. At the same time, it was snowing heavily on Western Europe.

_http://climatedata.e-monsite.com/medias/images/gfsnh-2013011806-10-6.png

Here is a 3d animation :

_https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bminxfVGa5w

The consequences

The events (splitting or displacement) are not rare, but they are not very common either. In its highest form, they are able to cause profound changes in the weather, for several weeks. Between the time when the phenomenon is triggered and its impact observed on the surface, it takes about two weeks. This is interesting because it allows to see the big changes coming in the weather, mainly winter offensive and cold waves. During the winter of 2012-2013 the event of displacement and forecasts of splitting event allowed to consider, about 20 days in advance, a sudden attack of winter.

The stratospheric polar vortex disturbances are indeed not without consequences for its ground-level counterpart that ends up being destabilized in turn. Normal traffic from west to east is indeed greatly disturbed by the direction of changes in stratospheric winds, the worst case being the reversal of the direction of the latter following a splitting event. In turn, the ground-level polar vortex eventually present high waves, consequently resulting in a change of surface winds and troposphere. In January, February and March 2013, these winds met regularly oriented to the north or northeast, bringing cold air and snow from 2012 to 2013 that will give a tough winter, abnormally cold and endless.

Conversely, in the winter of 2013-2014, the polar vortex has also undergone a SSW, relocating it to North America that has undergone an impressive cold snap while Europe bathed in sweetness and 'moisture.

_http://infometeobelgique.blogspot.fr/2013/12/vortex-polaire-et-rechauffement.html


Apparently, given the recent severe winters in the northern hemisphere, this happens more and more often. Perhaps because of differences with increasing temperatures between these 2 layers of atsmophère.

 

[Ca.]

Taipei, Taiwan Snow for the First Time in 80 Years at 23 N Latitude | Mini Ice Age 2015-2035 (122)
Published on Jan 24, 2016

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

RT
Time to dig out: Huge snowstorm comes to end leaving at least 25 dead on US East Coast
Published time: 24 Jan, 2016 17:55
https://www.rt.com/usa/329988-us-blizzard-snowstorm-end/

Well, Central Park had 26.8" of snow but it wasn't quite the biggest snowstorm on record. #winterstorm

https://twitter.com/NWSNewYorkNY/status/691224438172418048/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

https://twitter.com/idapop11/status/572939965962846209/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^

BLIZZARD of 2016! Scenes from Washington DC
Published on Jan 23, 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-g2ewTYfB00

 

[MikaelYosef]

In recent years there have been a bunch of one-off weather events around the world which have pretty much been 'wow' in terms of their context relative to other events. But they come and go, months pass, things go back to normal and people forget.

These winter events in the northern hemisphere at the moment - even if they're classed as 'records' - are they defining enough or are they just another cry of the wolf?

To be clear - I completely understand the premise for this post and am in full agreement that things are going on in the world. I just wonder if we're looking for specific signs of weather events which are coming and will be more significant around the corner? In other words, are these current events the actual precursors to an imminent change or are we still years away? How will we know?

 

[Ruth]

To be clear - I completely understand the premise for this post and am in full agreement that things are going on in the world. I just wonder if we're looking for specific signs of weather events which are coming and will be more significant around the corner? In other words, are these current events the actual precursors to an imminent change or are we still years away? How will we know?

It could be a bunch of things occurring at once that provides the required conditions necessary. Such as volcanic eruptions, combined with a quiet sun and an increase in meteor activity. Plus a few things that I most likely haven't thought of, either.

 

[Windmill knight]

In recent years there have been a bunch of one-off weather events around the world which have pretty much been 'wow' in terms of their context relative to other events. But they come and go, months pass, things go back to normal and people forget.

These winter events in the northern hemisphere at the moment - even if they're classed as 'records' - are they defining enough or are they just another cry of the wolf?

The thing is that if every year or two we get a record, then that means that the previous record was broken, which means that weather events are getting more extreme. Alternatively, you can have a bunch of smaller events which are not big enough to break a record, but which have increased dramatically in frequency, and that is noteworthy too.

 

[Pierre]

In recent years there have been a bunch of one-off weather events around the world which have pretty much been 'wow' in terms of their context relative to other events. But they come and go, months pass, things go back to normal and people forget.

Most people forget indeed and punctual events fade away. That's why it's important to see the global picture. When one does so, he can see a substantial increase in frequency and intensity of extreme weather / natural catastrophes.

These winter events in the northern hemisphere at the moment - even if they're classed as 'records' - are they defining enough or are they just another cry of the wolf?

The thing is that the Northern hemisphere has been experiencing 'record' winter almost every year since 2008. That may not be isolated anomalies any more but a relevant trend.

To be clear - I completely understand the premise for this post and am in full agreement that things are going on in the world. I just wonder if we're looking for specific signs of weather events which are coming and will be more significant around the corner? In other words, are these current events the actual precursors to an imminent change or are we still years away? How will we know?

Events like Gulf stream weakening, meandering Jet stream, reduced solar activity and so forth can be contributors to a glacial rebound. According to the very data provided by the IPCC, the average temperature at the surface of the planet has stopped increasing since 2000 (that was 16 years ago). So, it seems that we are close to an inversion. It's difficult to say exactly when such a switch will happen but when it happens it can be quick and brutal.

 

[Eol]

Hello :)

Last days, i was thinking about that (related to my 2 previous message in this thread) : If the solar activity manage the global temperatures, why are they increased since the 80' while the solar activity decreases ?

CO2 ? No way !

And I fell in a particulary interesting article that possibly could respond to that :

Global warming caused by CFCs, not carbon dioxide, study says


WATERLOO, Ont. (Thursday, May 30, 2013) - Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are to blame for global warming since the 1970s and not carbon dioxide, according to new research from the University of Waterloo published in the International Journal of Modern Physics B this week.

CFCs are already known to deplete ozone, but in-depth statistical analysis now shows that CFCs are also the key driver in global climate change, rather than carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.

"Conventional thinking says that the emission of human-made non-CFC gases such as carbon dioxide has mainly contributed to global warming. But we have observed data going back to the Industrial Revolution that convincingly shows that conventional understanding is wrong,” said Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy, biology and chemistry in Waterloo’s Faculty of Science. “In fact, the data shows that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays caused both the polar ozone hole and global warming.”

"Most conventional theories expect that global temperatures will continue to increase as CO2 levels continue to rise, as they have done since 1850. What’s striking is that since 2002, global temperatures have actually declined – matching a decline in CFCs in the atmosphere,” Professor Lu said. “My calculations of CFC greenhouse effect show that there was global warming by about 0.6 °C from 1950 to 2002, but the earth has actually cooled since 2002. The cooling trend is set to continue for the next 50-70 years as the amount of CFCs in the atmosphere continues to decline.”

The findings are based on in-depth statistical analyses of observed data from 1850 up to the present time, Professor Lu’s cosmic-ray-driven electron-reaction (CRE) theory of ozone depletion and his previous research into Antarctic ozone depletion and global surface temperatures.

“It was generally accepted for more than two decades that the Earth's ozone layer was depleted by the sun's ultraviolet light-induced destruction of CFCs in the atmosphere,” he said. “But in contrast, CRE theory says cosmic rays – energy particles originating in space – play the dominant role in breaking down ozone-depleting molecules and then ozone.”

Lu’s theory has been confirmed by ongoing observations of cosmic ray, CFC, ozone and stratospheric temperature data over several 11-year solar cycles. “CRE is the only theory that provides us with an excellent reproduction of 11-year cyclic variations of both polar ozone loss and stratospheric cooling,” said Professor Lu. “After removing the natural cosmic-ray effect, my new paper shows a pronounced recovery by ~20% of the Antarctic ozone hole, consistent with the decline of CFCs in the polar stratosphere.”

By proving the link between CFCs, ozone depletion and temperature changes in the Antarctic, Professor Lu was able to draw almost perfect correlation between rising global surface temperatures and CFCs in the atmosphere.

“The climate in the Antarctic stratosphere has been completely controlled by CFCs and cosmic rays, with no CO2 impact. The change in global surface temperature after the removal of the solar effect has shown zero correlation with CO2 but a nearly perfect linear correlation with CFCs - a correlation coefficient as high as 0.97.”

Data recorded from 1850 to 1970, before any significant CFC emissions, show that CO2 levels increased significantly as a result of the Industrial Revolution, but the global temperature, excluding the solar effect, kept nearly constant. The conventional warming model of CO2, suggests the temperatures should have risen by 0.6°C over the same period, similar to the period of 1970-2002.

The analyses indicate the dominance of Lu’s CRE theory and the success of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.

“We’ve known for some time that CFCs have a really damaging effect on our atmosphere and we’ve taken measures to reduce their emissions,” Professor Lu said. “We now know that international efforts such as the Montreal Protocol have also had a profound effect on global warming but they must be placed on firmer scientific ground.”

“This study underlines the importance of understanding the basic science underlying ozone depletion and global climate change,” said Terry McMahon, dean of the faculty of science. “This research is of particular importance not only to the research community, but to policy makers and the public alike as we look to the future of our climate.”

Professor Lu’s paper, Cosmic-Ray-Driven Reaction and Greenhouse Effect of Halogenated Molecules: Culprits for Atmospheric Ozone Depletion and Global Climate Change, also predicts that the global sea level will continue to rise for some years as the hole in the ozone recovers increasing ice melting in the polar regions.

“Only when the effect of the global temperature recovery dominates over that of the polar ozone hole recovery, will both temperature and polar ice melting drop concurrently,” says Lu.

The peer-reviewed paper published this week not only provides new fundamental understanding of the ozone hole and global climate change but has superior predictive capabilities, compared with the conventional sunlight-driven ozone-depleting and CO2-warming models.

https://uwaterloo.ca/news/news/global-warming-caused-cfcs-not-carbon-dioxide-study-says


Here is the study he has done about the relation between CFCs and cosmic rays : (I only read the introduction and rapidly the rest. I do not very feel at ease with technical english, so if somone can check if it's quite accurate please ?)

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1210/1210.1498.pdf

And here, the study he has done about the radiative effect of the CFCs :

http://journalofcosmology.com/QingBinLu.pdf

His other researches : http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~qblu/qblu_website/Publication.html


So we have less solar activity, wich causes more cosmic rays (anti-correlation) entering the atmosphere and less UV rays to. Less UV rays cause less dissociation of the oxygen, so less exothermic combination producing the ozone and therefore less heat. It cools the stratosphere. All this is precipitated by the interaction of CFCs and cosmic rays (Lu's theory) which boths increased. And we can even explain the global warming during the 80'/2002. Am I right ?

All seems to match. I will continue to investigate the thing. It can perhaps only be the radiative effect of the CFCs that is truly significant.

We could connected this to what the C's said :

[...] A: Climate is being influenced by three factors, and soon a fourth.
Q: (L) All right, I'll take the bait; give me the three factors, and also the fourth!.
A: 1) Wave approach. 2) Chlorofluorocarbon increase in atmosphere, thus affecting ozone layer. 3) Change in the planet's axis rotation orientation. 4) Artificial tampering by 3rd and 4th density STS forces in a number of different ways.[...]

http://web.archive.org/web/20030219123419/http://www.cassiopaea.org/sessions/970222.html

 

[Pierre]

If the solar activity manage the global temperatures, why are they increased since the 80' while the solar activity decreases ?

Are the global temperatures really increasing since the 80's? According to the very data provided by the IPCC (HADCRUT3), average temperatures on the planet have not increased since 2000:

So we have less solar activity, wich causes more cosmic rays (anti-correlation) entering the atmosphere and less UV rays to. Less UV rays cause less dissociation of the oxygen, so less exothermic combination producing the ozone and therefore less heat. It cools the stratosphere. All this is precipitated by the interaction of CFCs and cosmic rays (Lu's theory) which boths increased. And we can even explain the global warming during the 80'/2002. Am I right ?

I think the correlation between low solar activity and cooling is due to the increased inflow of high energy cosmic rays which act as cloud nuclei, clouds being a major contributor to cooling. The process is described in this excerpt from "Earth Changes and the Human-Cosmic Connection":

While the Sun does indeed emit radiations – ultraviolet, visible spectrum, infrared, gamma rays, X-rays – it also ejects massive quantities of particles through its solar wind. This outflow of ionized particles (mostly protons and electrons, with an overall positive charge) plays an important role on the electromagnetism of the solar system including the Earth’s and the Sun’s magnetic shield.

Now, if the minute decrease in solar irradiance due to reduced solar activity is not the cause for global cooling, how does reduced solar activity lead to global cooling? One key factor seems to be cloud formation.

Clouds have both a cooling and a warming effect. Clouds have a cooling effect because they scatter back into space about half of the incoming sunshine that would otherwise warm the Earth (that’s why cloudy days are colder than sunny ones). Clouds can also have a warming effect (greenhouse effect) by trapping the heat escaping from the earth’s surface (that’s why cloudy nights are warmer than starry nights).

The radiation ‘budget’ of clouds (are clouds net warmers or net coolers?) was a matter of scientific conjecture until three dedicated satellites were sent into space during the 1980’s to measure incoming sunlight and outgoing infrared radiation.

The results were clear. Overall, clouds have a strong net cooling effect. For instance, if nothing else changed, removing the cloud canopy would increase the Earth’s surface temperature by about 10° Celsius .

Clouds are made of water droplets in suspension in the air. For these droplets to form, three main factors are involved:

1) The temperature must drop low enough (below dew point) for condensation to occur. During condensation, atmospheric water vapor (water in gaseous form) is transformed into droplets (tiny drops of water in liquid form).

2) Also atmospheric particles must be present to help the droplets form. These particles are called ‘cloud condensation nuclei’. Without them, even if temperatures were very low there would be no condensation, and therefore no clouds. As discussed previously, Earth has experienced a steep increase in atmospheric cometary dust over recent years. These dust particles act as potential cloud condensation nuclei. Notice that even when atmospheric dust doesn’t generate clouds it has a net cooling effect as described earlier (global dimming).

3) Cosmic rays accelerate cloud formation. In the following we’ll describe this process.

As previously mentioned, the Sun’s magnetic field and the Earth’s magnetic field are powered by the Sun’s activity. Those fields literally act as magnetic shields against incoming cosmic rays; the Sun’s magnetic field (heliosphere) deflects about 50% of the cosmic rays. Comparatively speaking, the Earth’s magnetic field isn’t as effective at shielding us from cosmic rays. Even if it disappeared entirely, the number of incoming cosmic rays would only increase by 3%. That is, the Sun does most of the ‘protective’ work.

Cosmic rays are charged particles (mostly protons) that can almost reach the speed of light if highly energetic. They are generated by stars and supernovae. Our Sun produces cosmic rays too (solar winds) but they are energetically weak (only about 700 km/s).

Thus, when solar activity decreases, solar winds (low energy cosmic rays) decrease, but also the Sun’s magnetic shield weakens allowing a greater amount of high energy cosmic rays to reach the Solar system and ultimately our planet. The negative correlation between solar activity and cosmic ray flux has been evidenced by several researchers.

When reaching the Earth’s atmosphere, cosmic rays combine and interact with the particles of the earth’s atmosphere leading to swiftly moving particles called ‘secondary cosmic rays’. This particle mayhem occurs mainly between 15 and 25 km above our heads and leads to only one kind of particle that is able to reach the Earth’s surface in large numbers and without substantial loss of energy: muons.

Muons are like electrons except for their mass, they are 200 times heavier than electrons. Also muons have an extremely short life and they quickly transform into electrons. But, because of their very high speed, muons have enough time to penetrate deep into our atmosphere and spread electrons like ‘collateral damage’ along their whole atmospheric journey.

Electrons are the main catalysts of molecular clustering, i.e. cloud droplet formation. (© sott.net, adapted from Svensmark)

In the above drawing we can see from top to bottom how cosmic rays (yellow arrow) generate (via muons) electrons (red circles). Electrons accelerate the formation of clusters (turquoise blue circles) made of positively charged molecules in suspension in the atmosphere like clay dust, carbon, sulfur dioxide (green circles) eventually leading to stable and electrically neutral clusters (blue circles) which act as condensation nuclei (dark blue circle) around which water droplet can form.

The catalyzing effect of electrons has been repeatedly demonstrated experimentally in cloud chambers .

Knowing that the main causes of cloud formation are cosmic rays and atmospheric dust (cometary and volcanic origin) and that these two factors are on the rise because of the hypothesized approach of Nemesis (grounding the Sun and reducing its activity) and its cometary swarm, we can expect an overall increase in cloud cover in the future and the resulting cooling effects.

 

[Eol]

Hi Pierre.

Are the global temperatures really increasing since the 80's? According to the very data provided by the IPCC (HADCRUT3), average temperatures on the planet have not increased since 2000:

Personally, in concert with my observations, I agree with you. The Professor Lu also says that the atmosphere is cooling since 2002 wich is close to what you said. The problem is that you can also find many curves that show the opposite like this one :

It tends to confuse and both side can potentially argue in their own favors.

I think the correlation between low solar activity and cooling is due to the increased inflow of high energy cosmic rays which act as cloud nuclei, clouds being a major contributor to cooling. The process is described in this excerpt from "Earth Changes and the Human-Cosmic Connection":

Concerning the Svensmark's theory, I remain reserved and i'm going to say why.

In the first place, if the ISCCP's data are correct, we can see that the total cloud cover has increased since 2000, like you said in your book.

But, If we want to be accurate, we can see (2000-20004) that the total cloud cover incresead. In the same time, the cosmics rays remained (weak) and stable. Since 2004 (2004-2010), the global cloud cover remained stable while cosmic rays increased. The GC rays increased while the global cloud cover decreased (1992-1998). But we can also see the oppisite. (1983-1987) Both increased. (1987-1992) Both decreased.

An other problem is that the amount of low cloud (wich tend to cool the atmosphere) decreased since this moment.

_http://creation.com/linking-cosmic-rays-to-weather-and-climate

_http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/09/do-cosmic-rays-set-the-earths-thermostat/


It tends to invalide what Svensmark said about the relation between low cloud cover and galactic cosmic rays.
So, in my case, i can only say that yes, it could have there a correlation between the total cloud cover and the GC rays. And, like you said in your book, more cloud cover in general generate a decrease in the temperatures.

Secondly, the ISCCp's data could be uncertain. And we known that Svensmark and his team have re-calibrated the data from the ISCCP. The result is that his curve match perfectly with that of GC rays until 2005.

And i don't know how he made this so i can't judge with only that.

Here is a quote from a good file who include a lot of information about the GC rays:

From reading the papers and responses (including Svensmark's here), my conclusion is that the cloud data itself is unfortunately not good enough to say much of anything about Svensmark's hypothesis, except that there is no support. There appear to be on-going problems with calibrations, with the inability of the ISCCP to differentiate between low, mid, and high clouds, view angle problems, and intra-satellite calibration problems.

_https://www.cabrillo.edu/~rnolthenius/climate/Denialists/D-CosmicRays/index.html (I do not agree with all he says)

After all this, I always take the Svensmark theory in consideration. But for me we should have more data and experiments (like the CERN made in 2010) to realy clarify the question. I would realy appreciate if you can give some more clues about that.


Well, concerning my question in my last post, which is :

If the solar activity manage the global temperatures, why are they increased since the 80' while the solar activity decreases ?

(we will say increase since the 80' and colling since 2000-2002)

Even if we consider the Svensmark theory true, it can't explain that. If solar activity decrease we have less solar iradiance. It's very small, 0,1-0.2%, but :

As such, even 0.1 percent of the amount of light the sun emits exceeds all other energy sources the Earth's atmosphere sees combined, such as the radioactivity naturally emitted from Earth's core, Kopp explained.

_http://www.space.com/19280-solar-activity-earth-climate.html

And less solar activity cause more cosmic rays reaching the atmosphere, more nucleation, more clouds therfore a cooling (Acording to the Svensmark theory).
But we don't definitively see that. The temperatures have increased. And the only thing that i know at the moment, and can match with that, is the theory of Profesor Lu. And his theory is not fundamentally in opposite with what Svensmark propose and what you say in your book. It can be both. The 'anomaly' can just be caused by the increase of CFCs.

And he also predicted a tropospheric cooling for the future / in opposite with a stratospheric warming with can be connected with what Gérald Messadié said :

the rapid growth of the differences between the troposphere and the upper layers can not proceed beyond a certain limit, as indicated by the laws of thermodynamics. An inversion can occur and even brutally.

This cooling of the uper atmosphere is realy fascinating. I know this subject only since a few months and i find very suspicious that we talk all day about the anthropogenic warming and very little about this cooling.

 

[Pierre]

Hi Pierre.

Are the global temperatures really increasing since the 80's? According to the very data provided by the IPCC (HADCRUT3), average temperatures on the planet have not increased since 2000:

Personally, in concert with my observations, I agree with you. The Professor Lu also says that the atmosphere is cooling since 2002 wich is close to what you said. The problem is that you can also find many curves that show the opposite like this one :

It tends to confuse and both side can potentially argue in their own favors.

You're right there are many contradicting analysis and on top of that you've potential 'data cooking' like what happened in East Anglia. I'm wondering if the global temperatures increase, mostly notable in 2014/2015, is not a consequence of Solar cycle 24 maximum (it's a weak maximum but it still provides 50-70 sunspots/month maybe thanks to a sustained cometary activity) combined with a very active El Nino.

Ironically, in the sessions both El Nino cycles and solar cycles are attributed to some 'reverberating cosmic energy'. If that's the case it's difficult to go much further than that because it doesn't seem to be acknowledged by mainstream (or even alternative) science.

I think the correlation between low solar activity and cooling is due to the increased inflow of high energy cosmic rays which act as cloud nuclei, clouds being a major contributor to cooling. The process is described in this excerpt from "Earth Changes and the Human-Cosmic Connection":

Concerning the Svensmark's theory, I remain reserved and i'm going to say why.

In the first place, if the ISCCP's data are correct, we can see that the total cloud cover has increased since 2000, like you said in your book.

But, If we want to be accurate, we can see (2000-20004) that the total cloud cover incresead. In the same time, the cosmics rays remained (weak) and stable. Since 2004 (2004-2010), the global cloud cover remained stable while cosmic rays increased. The GC rays increased while the global cloud cover decreased (1992-1998). But we can also see the oppisite. (1983-1987) Both increased. (1987-1992) Both decreased.

An other problem is that the amount of low cloud (wich tend to cool the atmosphere) decreased since this moment.

_http://creation.com/linking-cosmic-rays-to-weather-and-climate

_http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/09/do-cosmic-rays-set-the-earths-thermostat/


It tends to invalide what Svensmark said about the relation between low cloud cover and galactic cosmic rays.
So, in my case, i can only say that yes, it could have there a correlation between the total cloud cover and the GC rays. And, like you said in your book, more cloud cover in general generate a decrease in the temperatures.

Yes that was my take on it. Only total cloud cover or more specifically low+medium altitude cloud cover (high altitude clouds like cirrus are net warmers) can exhibit an overall increase while correlating with cooling and increase in galactic cosmic rays.

Secondly, the ISCCp's data could be uncertain. And we known that Svensmark and his team have re-calibrated the data from the ISCCP. The result is that his curve match perfectly with that of GC rays until 2005.

And i don't know how he made this so i can't judge with only that.

Here is a quote from a good file who include a lot of information about the GC rays:

From reading the papers and responses (including Svensmark's here), my conclusion is that the cloud data itself is unfortunately not good enough to say much of anything about Svensmark's hypothesis, except that there is no support. There appear to be on-going problems with calibrations, with the inability of the ISCCP to differentiate between low, mid, and high clouds, view angle problems, and intra-satellite calibration problems.

_https://www.cabrillo.edu/~rnolthenius/climate/Denialists/D-CosmicRays/index.html (I do not agree with all he says)

After all this, I always take the Svensmark theory in consideration. But for me we should have more data and experiments (like the CERN made in 2010) to realy clarify the question. I would realy appreciate if you can give some more clues about that.

I'm afraid I don't have more clues than you do. The tricky thing is that there are so many factors contributing to surface temperatures that it's nearly impossible to single out one factor and perfectly correlate it with surface temperatures since the other factors are interfering and sometimes even driving temperatures in the opposite direction.

Well, concerning my question in my last post, which is :

If the solar activity manage the global temperatures, why are they increased since the 80' while the solar activity decreases ?

(we will say increase since the 80' and colling since 2000-2002)

Even if we consider the Svensmark theory true, it can't explain that. If solar activity decrease we have less solar iradiance. It's very small, 0,1-0.2%, but :

As such, even 0.1 percent of the amount of light the sun emits exceeds all other energy sources the Earth's atmosphere sees combined, such as the radioactivity naturally emitted from Earth's core, Kopp explained.

_http://www.space.com/19280-solar-activity-earth-climate.html

And less solar activity cause more cosmic rays reaching the atmosphere, more nucleation, more clouds therfore a cooling (Acording to the Svensmark theory).
But we don't definitively see that. The temperatures have increased. And the only thing that i know at the moment, and can match with that, is the theory of Profesor Lu. And his theory is not fundamentally in opposite with what Svensmark propose and what you say in your book. It can be both. The 'anomaly' can just be caused by the increase of CFCs.

True solar activity can't be the only modulator of surface temperatures. CFCs are certainly a contributor to atmospheric warming (greenhouse effect 1000's of times greater than CO2). Like for other factors data are contradictory. Some sources mention CFCs concentrations still increasing but at a slower rate compared to the 90's other sources mention a drop in concentration. What % of the warming is due to the CFCs?

And he also predicted a tropospheric cooling for the future / in opposite with a stratospheric warming with can be connected with what Gérald Messadié said :

the rapid growth of the differences between the troposphere and the upper layers can not proceed beyond a certain limit, as indicated by the laws of thermodynamics. An inversion can occur and even brutally.

This cooling of the uper atmosphere is realy fascinating. I know this subject only since a few months and i find very suspicious that we talk all day about the anthropogenic warming and very little about this cooling.

[/quote]

I didn't know about this prediction of a cooling troposhere coupled with a warming stratosphere. I had only noticed a cooling of the stratosphere since roughly 2000.

When I first read about this cooling of the upper atmosphere I thought about the flash frozen mammoths and I wondered about what would happen if a 'superstorm' or a comet induced electrogravitational disturbance moved some of the cold upper atmosphere down to the Earth's surface.

 

[Laura]

I think there is another factor to this heating/cooling of the Earth. Cs did say that heating was the precursor to sudden glacial rebound. There was also something else involved with those transfer points: El Nino/La Nina:

A: Continental "drift" is caused by the continual though variable, propelling of gases from the interior to the surface, mainly at points of magnetic significance.
Q: (Jan) What causes the change in the axis?
A: By slow down of rotation. Earth alternately heats up and cools down in interior.
Q: (Laura) Why does it do that? What's the cause of this?
A: Part of cycle related to energy exerted upon surface by the frequency resonance vibrational profile of humans and others.

And that's another thing that has been reported a number of times in recent years: adding time to the atomic clock, and slowing of the Earth's rotation.

 

[Eol]

True solar activity can't be the only modulator of surface temperatures. CFCs are certainly a contributor to atmospheric warming (greenhouse effect 1000's of times greater than CO2). Like for other factors data are contradictory. Some sources mention CFCs concentrations still increasing but at a slower rate compared to the 90's other sources mention a drop in concentration. What % of the warming is due to the CFCs?

I don't know. But yes, like you said, it can be a component of the hole process.

I didn't know about this prediction of a cooling troposhere coupled with a warming stratosphere. I had only noticed a cooling of the stratosphere since roughly 2000.

When I first read about this cooling of the upper atmosphere I thought about the flash frozen mammoths and I wondered about what would happen if a 'superstorm' or a comet induced electrogravitational disturbance moved some of the cold upper atmosphere down to the Earth's surface.

Yes, there are many possibilities by whom the chaos could arrive :/. Thanks to a member of the forum, he made me discover the "sudden stratospheric warming"

This "SSW", to remain simple, is owed to forcing resulting(coming) from the troposphere or from the mésosphère. By considering the troposphere, we have to integrate(join) the notion of wave of Rossby. These waves are trained(formed) by the undulations of the Jet-stream which bounds the polar troposphérique whirlpool of its environment. When a wave of big importance advecte a powerful breath of hot air in the direction of the pole, the energy so transported towards the polar regions can echo in the stratosphere as far as this energy is important enough. The air of the stratospheric whirlpool begins then to warm itself brutally from its periphery(outskirts), from dozens of degrees within a few days. Yet(Now), we saw that the thermal winds depended on the gradient of temperature between the air intra-whirlpool and the air extra-whirlpool. Given that the gradient is decreased further to the reheating of the air intra-whirlpool, the thermal winds decrease in force, and the stratospheric whirlpool enters an unstable phase.

Vents(Blowholes) (splitting or displacement) are not rare, but they are not extremely frequent either. In them more great form, they are capable of pulling(entailing) profound modifications of the weather report, and it for several weeks. Enter the moment when the phenomenon starts and his(its) impact observed on surface, he(it) passes by approximately two weeks. This is interesting because it allows to see coming the big modifications of the weather report, essentially the wintry offensives and the cold spells. During winter 2012-2013, the forecasts of the displacement vent(blowhole) then the splitting vent(blowhole) allowed to envisage, approximately 20 days in advance, a sudden onslaught of winter. The disturbances of the stratospheric polar whirlpool are not indeed without consequences on his(her) troposphérique counterpart who(which) eventually destabilizes in his/her turn. The usual traffic(circulation) from west to east is indeed strongly disturbed by the modifications of direction(management) of the stratospheric winds, the worst case being the inversion of the direction(management) of the latter further to a splitting vent(blowhole). In his/her turn, the polar whirlpool troposphérique eventually presents strong undulations, pulling(entailing) consistently a modification of the on-surface winds and in troposphere. So, in January, February and March, 2013, these winds found themselves regularly facing north or in the northeast, bringing of the cold air and some snow which will give a sturdy, abnormally cold and endless winter 2012-2013.

On the contrary, during the winter 2013-2014, the polar whirlpool also underwent a SSW, relocating him(it) towards North America which underwent an impressive cold spell whereas Europe soaked in the sweetness and the humidity.

_http://infometeobelgique.blogspot.fr/2013/12/vortex-polaire-et-rechauffement.html

I think there is another factor to this heating/cooling of the Earth. Cs did say that heating was the precursor to sudden glacial rebound. There was also something else involved with those transfer points: El Nino/La Nina:

A: Continental "drift" is caused by the continual though variable, propelling of gases from the interior to the surface, mainly at points of magnetic significance.
Q: (Jan) What causes the change in the axis?
A: By slow down of rotation. Earth alternately heats up and cools down in interior.
Q: (Laura) Why does it do that? What's the cause of this?
A: Part of cycle related to energy exerted upon surface by the frequency resonance vibrational profile of humans and others.

And that's another thing that has been reported a number of times in recent years: adding time to the atomic clock, and slowing of the Earth's rotation.

I wonder if the strong El Nino of this year (By increasing the gap from the temperatures of the different layers) could precepitate all this. (It seems to be 'a spike' according to the last Session.)

I just know that when the solar activity is weak (like in the Mauder minimun), the diameter of the sun is more important and his rotation speed decreases. Can this " propelling of gases from the interior to the surface" have an incidence in the diameter of the Earth ? His magnetic activity is also decreasing. I don't know if it can be connected with less rotation speed.

 

[wopthedo]

What a strange Winter the N Hemisphere is experiencing! Record warmth in France, record floods in the UK, record blizzard in New York after unprecedented December warmth, killing cold in Vietnam, Laos, Japan, S Korea, China, Mongolia, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey...

So it ought to come as no surprise that Global Cooling will be noticeable by 2018.

Here's a video pointing investigators in the right direction :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ocCh5yDaqs

 

[HiThere]

+4 degrees (much too warm for the season) and hurricane "Tor" in the coastal regions of Norway:

http://www.nrk.no/hordaland/campingvognen-rullet-forbi-kjokkenvinduet-1.12777294

 

[macyk]

First snow (in history) in Taipei Taiwan 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlNkfsoYPIs