Pagina 54 van 54

Re: Het zonnemaximum effect

Geplaatst: wo 23 jan 2019, 03:21
door blackbox
Energy from Space | The Shift Has Begun

The critical issue in this presentation is whether the reversal is going to happen soon. It is undeniable that the general pole shift and field weakening have presented symptomatically of a reversal or significant excursion, and the only point both ESA/SWARM and MIT use to quell fear is that they believe it will take 1000s of years. The math of losing 5% per decade, and the potential for fast reversals, cast a shadow on such aspersions of safety.

Re: Het zonnemaximum effect

Geplaatst: do 31 jan 2019, 22:34
door blackbox
Earth Catastrophe Cycle | SOLAR MICRONOVA

A solar micronova satisfies all the catastrophe evidence, including the cyclical nature, the disaster sweet-spot, AND impactor-like evidence.

Earth Catastrophe Cycle | SOLAR MICRONOVA II

In part 5, the solar micronova sparks the imagination, and Douglas Vogt speaks to us about his decades of research.

Earth Catastrophe Cycle | SOLAR MICRONOVA III

Re: Het zonnemaximum effect

Geplaatst: do 07 feb 2019, 23:01
door blackbox
Earth Catastrophe Cycle | Signs on the Sun

Episode 15 | Signs on the sun of a micronova or super flare to come, and also how we can track the pole shift without the ‘officials’. Also BONUS material from Dr. Dunning at the end!

Watch the full Catastrophe Cycle Series: ... OZ3APVS8br

Comets might offer years warning of a micronova. Ion changes could be seen months ahead of time. Rotation changes would mean an event is imminent. While some of the animations are from NASA, ESO, ESA and other public-use resources. Others were purchased from VideoBlocks or created by Xaviar Thunders for SpaceWeatherNews. Please be advised that copying some parts of this video may infringe on the rights of VideoBlocks and their creators... yes, the moon one and the purple split-sun one.

Re: Het zonnemaximum effect

Geplaatst: za 16 feb 2019, 20:24
door blackbox
PDF Alert!


Re: Het zonnemaximum effect

Geplaatst: vr 08 mar 2019, 14:27
door blackbox
Solar Flare/CME Earth-Directed, Geo-Engineering | S0 News Mar.8.2019

Re: Het zonnemaximum effect

Geplaatst: ma 18 mar 2019, 13:53
door blackbox
Laatste Zonnestorm van vorige week gaf dit plaatje in Rusland.



Re: Het zonnemaximum effect

Geplaatst: ma 15 apr 2019, 00:00
door blackbox
Record Blizzard Totals - Moon Crash - Solar Minimum Cycle 24 Prediction & Consequences Revealed

As blizzard exits central U.S., severe weather to erupt this weekend from new storm in South Heartland begins digging out as blockbuster spring blizzard finally departs HOW MUCH DID YOU GET? April 11 snowfall totals What caused that brown-colored snow? Snowiest Winter on Record in Eau Claire, Wisconsin Utah’s ski resorts have seen record snow this year — and there’s still a month left on the slopes for some
March was second snowiest on record for Aspen
High water levels predicted in Lake Michigan this summer GFS Model Severe Thunderstorm Outbreak Expected from Eastern Texas into Western Alabama on Saturday;Threat Shifts to Ohio Valley into the Southeast Sunday BBC weather WARNING: Temperatures to PLUMMET to -4 as Scandinavian cold snap strikes Latest predictions for the coming solar cycle 2008 Sichuan earthquake 2009 Samoa earthquake 6.8 magnitude earthquake off Indonesia coast prompts tsunami warnings Worldwide Volcano News and Updates Sunspot Data Canada Hikes Price of Diesel Fuel With New Carbon Tax Filipinos plan more diggings where new human species found WHO stops short of declaring health emergency over DRC Ebola outbreak Israeli spacecraft Beresheet crashes in attempt to land on moon Israeli Beresheet spacecraft snaps picture moments before crashing into moon Enhancing your High: Herbs to Combine with Cannabis Mutations found in individuals with autism interfere with endocannabinoid signaling in the brain

Re: Het zonnemaximum effect

Geplaatst: ma 12 aug 2019, 19:09
door ninti
This is the story journalist Doron Levin wrote for Forbes about the scientific research by Professor Nir Shaviv and Professor Henrik Svensmark, two members of the GWPF’s Academic Advisory Council. The Forbes editor, however, doesn’t seem to like the piece and has therefore removed it from its website. We publish the censored story here for interested readers to make up their own minds about the research by Nir Shaviv and Henrik Svensmark.
“Since then, literally billions have been spent on climate research,” he said. Yet “the conventional wisdom hasn’t changed. The proponents of man-made climate change still ignore the effect of the sun on the earth’s climate, which overturns our understanding of twentieth-century climate change.”
“Solar activity varies over time. A major variation is roughly eleven years or more, which clearly affects climate. This principle has been generally known – but in 2008 I was able to quantify it by using sea level data. When the sun is more active, there is a rise in sea level here on earth. Higher temperature makes water expand. When the sun is less active, temperature goes down and the sea level falls – the correlation is as clear as day.
“Based on the increase of solar activity during the twentieth century, it should account for between half to two-thirds of all climate change,” he said. “That, in turn, implies that climate sensitivity to CO2 should be about 1.0 degree when the amount of CO2 doubles.”
The link between solar activity and the heating and cooling of the earth is indirect, he explained. Cosmic rays entering the earth’s atmosphere from the explosive death of massive stars across the universe play a significant role in the formation of so-called cloud condensation nuclei needed for the formation of clouds. When the sun is more active, solar wind reduces the rate of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. A more active solar wind leads to fewer cloud formation nuclei, producing clouds that are less white and less reflective, thus warming the earth.
“Today we can demonstrate and prove the sun’s effect on climate based on a wide range of evidence, from fossils that are hundreds of millions of years old to buoy readings to satellite altimetry data from the past few decades,” he said. “We also can reproduce and mimic atmospheric conditions in the laboratory to confirm the evidence.
“All of it shows the same thing, the bulk of climate change is caused by the sun via its impact on atmospheric charge,” he said. “Which means that most of the warming comes from nature, whereas a doubling of the amount of CO2 raises temperature by only 1.0 to 1.5 degrees. A freshman physics student can see this.”
Nevertheless, the world of climate science has “mostly ignored” his research findings. “Of course, I’m frustrated,” he said. “Our findings are very inconvenient for conventional wisdom” as summarized by the IPCC. “We know that there have been very large variations of climate in the past that have little to do with the burning of fossil fuels. A thousand years ago the earth was as warm as it is today. During the Little Ice Age three hundred years ago the River Thames froze more often. In the first and second IPCC reports these events were mentioned. In 2001 they disappeared. Suddenly no mention of natural warming, no Little Ice Age. The climate of the last millennium was presented as basically fixed until the twentieth century. This is a kind of Orwellian cherry-picking to fit a pre-determined narrative.”

Shaviv says that he has accepted no financial support for his research by the fossil fuel industry. Experiments in Denmark with Prof. Henrik Svensmark and others to demonstrate the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation were supported by the Carlsberg Foundation. In the U.S. the conservative Heartland Institute and the European Institute for Climate and Energy have invited him to speak, covering travel expenses.

Read more see link above

On his blog, Professor Nir Shaviv responds to the shameful decision by the editor of Forbes to remove an interview with him which describes the scientific research published over many years by Professors Henrik Svensmark and Nir Shaviv. ... w-with-me/

In any case, the main goal of this post is to provide the scientific backing for the main points I raised in the interview. Here it comes.

First and foremost, I claim that the sun has a large effect on climate and that the IPCC is ignoring this effect. This I showed when I studied the heat going into the oceans using 3 independent datasets – ocean heat content, sea surface temperature, and most impressively, tide gauge records (see reference #1 below), and found the same thing in a subsequent study based on another data set, that of satellite altimetry (see reference #2 below). Note that both are refereed publications in the journal of geophysical research, which is the bread and butter journal of geophysics. So no one can claim it was published in obscure journals, yet, even though the first paper has been published already in 2008, it has been totally ignored by the climate community. In fact, there is no paper (right or wrong) that tried to invalidate it. Clearly then, the community has to take it into consideration. Moreover, when one considers that the sun has a large effect on climate, the 20th century warming is much better explained (with a much smaller residual). See reference #3 below, again refereed).

1. I should add that there are a few claims that the sun cannot affect the climate because of various reasons, none holds water. Here is why: The first claims is that “the sun cannot have a large effect on climate because changes in the irradiance are too small to do so, and we don’t know of a mechanism that can”. This is irrelevant because given that the oceans prove that the sun has a large effect on climate, we must consider it even if we don’t know how it comes about. Often in science we are forced to accept a theory we don’t fully understand because the empirical evidence suggests so. Mendelian genetics explained reality pretty well (though we now know it is a bit more complicated) a century before Watson and Crick showed what the underlying mechanism is. Does it mean that we should have discarded Mendelian genetics for a century without knowing the mechanism? Pauli postulated the existence of the neutrino a quarter of a century before it was actually detected. Similarly, almost all cosmologists and particle physicists assume that dark matter exists, because an overwhelming amount of evidence suggests so, and because alternatives simply don’t work (mainly MOND, e.g., as a post-doc and I have shown in a paper as well as many others). However, we don’t really know what dark matter really is (there are many suggestions), but its existance has to be considered. Having said that, we actually do see very clear empirical evidence pointing to the link, as I describe below.

2. The second claim is that “solar activity decreased from the 1990’s but the temperature continued to increase. So the sun cannot be the reason for the heating”. It is wrong at several levels. First, one has to realize that the temperature anomaly at a given time is not some fixed factor times the forcing at the time. This is because the system has a finite heat capacity and various interesting feedbacks. Without properly modeling it, erroneous conclusions can be reached. A simple example is ruling out the solar flux as the major source of heat because between noon time and say 2pm, the solar flux is decreasing but the temperature is increasing! (Similarly, the average solar flux is decreasing during the month of July in the northern hemisphere, but the temperature is increasing). Solar activity has been high over the latter half of the 20th century such that even after solar activity started to decreases, the temperature should continue increasing for a decade or so, albeit at a lower pace. Second, the above argument is extremely simplistic. Proper modeling has to consider that human have contributed as well to the net positive forcing. And indeed, when one considers both the large effect that the sun has, and the anthropogenic forcing, one can explain 20th century climate change if climate sensitivity is on the low side, much better than the IPCC models that exclude the large effect that the sun has, but assume a large climate sensitivity instead. See reference #3 below, as well as Roy Spencer’s short talk showing that climate models generally give a much larger temperature increase than has been observed over the past 2 decades.

3. The third claim is that when 20th temperature changes are compared with solar activity and anthropogenic forcing, one doesn’t see the 11 year solar cycle in the temperature data, which can be used to place an upper limit on the solar effect. This faulty argument is related to the previous one. It too assumes that the temperature should be proportional to the radiative forcing at any instant, and because the temperature variations over the 11 year solar cycle are only of order 0.1°C, the contribution to 20th century warming should be similar since the secular increase in the solar forcing is comparable to the variations over the 11 year solar cycle. However, the large heat capacity of the oceans damps any temperature variations on short time scales. Proper modeling reveals that an 0.1°C variation over the solar cycle should actually correspond to a variation much larger on the centennial time scale, in fact, about half to two thirds of the warming (see reference #3 below and my comments about the BEST analysis from Berkeley who “proved” that the sun cannot have a large climate effect based on the above argument).

As I said above, we now know from significant empirical data where the solar climate link comes from. It is through solar wind modulation of the galactic cosmic ray flux which governs the amount of atmospheric ionization, and which in turn affects the formation of cloud condensation nuclei and therefore cloud properties (e.g., lifetime and reflectivity). How do we know that?

See Full Post here:

Re: Het zonnemaximum effect

Geplaatst: di 13 aug 2019, 23:22
door Het Dolle Eland

Re: Het zonnemaximum effect

Geplaatst: ma 26 aug 2019, 10:04
door ninti
Massive pumice 'raft' spotted in the Pacific could help replenish Great Barrier Reef
The 150 sq km field of floating rock was created by an underwater volcanic eruption near Tonga
A giant raft of pumice, which was spotted in the Pacific and is expected to make its way towards Australia, could help the recovery of the Great Barrier Reef from its bleaching episode by restocking millions of tiny marine organisms, including coral.

The pumice raft, which is about 150 sq km, was produced by an underwater volcano near Tonga. It was first reported by Australian couple Michael Hoult and Larissa Brill, who were sailing a catamaran to Fiji, on 16 August.
Since then, the pair have been working with Queensland University of Technology geologist Scott Bryan by providing pictures and samples of the volcanic rock.

Bryan said the raft will be the temporary home for billions of marine organisms. Marine life including barnacles, corals, crabs, snails and worms will tag along as it travels toward Australia and become a “potential mechanism for restocking the Great Barrier Reef”.

“Based on past pumice raft events we have studied over the last 20 years, it’s going to bring new healthy corals and other reef dwellers to the Great Barrier Reef,” Bryan said.
It should begin to hit Australian shores in about seven months’ time, passing by New Caledonia, Vanuatu and reefs in the eastern Coral Sea along the way as coral begins to spawn. ... rrier-reef