Climate Change: A Tale of Two Theories
Climate Change: A Tale of Two Theories
This short article challenges the "settled science" narrative that climate change is driven by man-made carbon emissions. It presents data from reputable sources indicating that the current rise in global temperature (from 1850 to present) may be explained by a combination of two alternative theories:
Cosmic Ray Hypothesis: Proposed by Professor Nir Shaviv and Professor Henrik Svensmark, this theory suggests that cosmic rays, which vary in intensity with altitude, interact with the atmosphere to create nuclei that form clouds. Clouds have a nett cooling effect, significantly impacting our climate. Consequently, high periods of cosmic rays have a cooling affect and low periods a warming.
Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis: Proposed by Dr. Javier Vinós, this theory posits that climate change is caused by changes in the transport of energy towards the poles, with solar variability being a key factor in this process.
The following graphical representations demonstrate a strong correlation between solar cycles, cosmic rays, ocean / atmospheric heat transport and temperature.
All graphs, except for graph 4, can be recreated and verified using the links provided and on this basis peer review is unnecessary.
Graph 1 (NASA & Berkeley Earth)
Graph 1 depicts the January warming (5-year rolling average) trend for the mean of four locations in the Northern hemisphere (approximately 600 latitudes), at longitudes that span the globe, with solar forcing plotted on the secondary axis. They demonstrate a clear correlation between solar cycles and temperature that indicate global warming is caused directly or indirectly by the sun. As the entire temperature change (1860 to 2020) is represented in this graph the “smoothness” and intensity of the cycling is indicative of how powerful this root cause must be. From the correlation of the temperature anomaly trend and solar forcing (energy input) it is implicit that an amplification mechanism must exist as the energy input (0.2 W/M2) is insufficient to cause a temperature increase of this magnitude.
Graph 2 (Berkeley Earth / University of Oulu)
Graph 2 demonstrates a clear visual and temporal correlation of cosmic ray variation (standard deviation) and temperature anomaly for Oulu Finland. This alignment strongly agrees with proposal that cosmic rays interact with our atmosphere that create cloud condensation nuclei, that increase cloud cover, that have a nett climate cooling affect.
Graph 3 (NOAA)
Graph 3 indicates a strong correlation between the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) sea surface temperatures variation (SD - standard deviation) and solar cycles. The timing of the mean intervals between peaks and dips aligns exactly with solar cycles for the same period. This is evidence that the sun cycles directly or indirectly are the cause of the rise in sea surface temperatures in the North Atlantic.
Graph 4 (Holgate 2007)
Graph 4 taken from data from a paper written by Holgate in 2007, illustrates a strong alignment between the rate of sea level change and sunspot number indicating the strength of influence of solar cycles on global sea level elevation. Sea level increase is caused by thermal expansion and melting ice at the poles.
Graph 5 (Berkeley Earth)
Graph 5 clearly illustrates a significant difference between January and July in the intensity of cycling and variation for Northern Hemisphere. See below for an explanation.
Graph 6 (NOAA / Berkeley Earth)
Graph 6 compares the monthly temperature variation (SD / standard deviation) in the North Atlantic (AMO) with Greenland. There is a trend reversal indicating the significant role of heat transport to Greenland from the ocean / atmospheric circulation. This may be explained by the fact that the primary source of heat, at these latitudes in winter, is from the ocean and atmospheric circulation as there is minimal energy from the sun. Consequently, there is strong cycling and variation in winter (reflecting the ocean cycling in graphs 3 & 4). This affect diminishes as the land warms in summer when the differential between the sea surface temperature and the land is reduced with a consequent loss of cycling and variation (see graph 5).
Graph 7 (NOAA / Berkeley Earth)
Graph 7 compares the monthly warming in the North Atlantic (AMO) and Greenland. This also supports the concept of heat transport to the northern hemisphere from the ocean / atmospheric circulation. In the summer months the warming rates merge towards one another and depart in winter as the temperature difference is maximised in winter and minimised in summer.
Conclusions
These graphical representations, from a significant number of independent data sources, are strongly supportive of an amalgamation of the hypotheses of Henrik Svensmark / Nir Shaviv and Javier Vinós. Both theories propose an amplification mechanism that is embodied in graphs 1 to 7 above. They are not supportive of the role of carbon dioxide as responsible for the current increase in global temperatures.
On this basis It is proposed that these graphs, that represent a more plausible explanation of current (and past) climate trends, should replace the Michael Mann “hockey stick”.
It is also implicit that all measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions will have no bearing on our climate.
In a debate on Tom Nelson’s podcast Gerald Kutney (author of “Climate Denial in American Politics”) claimed:
“there is no evidence of natural variability causing climate change in the past century”
The graphical representations above would disagree with this statement. It is difficult to find a data set that does indicate a solar signature.
Here are some of the extreme views held by Gerald Kutney:
“The endless blabbering ... lies ... nonsense ... and other propaganda ... from anonymous nobodies are frustrating and boring ... these are the posts of fossil fools and other climate deniers ... they contribute to global boiling and my blood boiling.”
This is the image he posted:
Videos / links with more detailed explanations and further evidence:
Stephen Andrews: Cosmic rays and the winter gatekeeper | Tom Nelson Pod #275
Nir Shaviv: Cosmic rays and climate | Tom Nelson Pod #138
#44 - Henrik Svensmark: “It is impossible for me to get funding for doing this kind of work”
Javier Vinós: Searching for Natural Climate Change | Tom Nelson Podcast #70
#14 - Climate debate between Tom Nelson and Gerald Kutney
References / data links:
Berkeley Earth city / station specific data:
Temperature City List - Berkeley Earth
NASA Solar Forcing
data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/solar.irradiance/forcing.data.txt
Oulu University Cosmic ray data 1964 to current
NOAA AMO sea surface temperatures
https://psl.noaa.gov/data/timeseries/AMO/
The Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis (VII). A summary plus Q&A. This link includes free access to the full written work of Javier Vinós
The Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis (VII). A summary plus Q&A - Climate Etc.
On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century
S.J.Holgate 2007
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/share/CRTEC7CSRYZIXVHIXYG3?target=10.1029/2006GL028492
Great piece of consolidated studies. I'm not a climate scientist but trained to work with data. The NOAA sea level data at all stations globally but especially The Battery in NYC because of its recording history from 1850's are rising but linear i.e., Y = mx +b. CO2, also supplied by NOAA, has risen ~30%+ but quadradically, meaning y = ax*x + bx + c. They are visually displayed a long straight trend from 1850's for sea level with a decided upward curve for CO2 from 1956.
By thinking of sea level as a proxy for global warming, it is simple to see that CO2 has zero effect over this period. This is the simplest display to produce but in itself speaks volumes.
I am extremely sceptical about the claim that humanity by using fuels which create CO2 is causing the climate to change. As a hypothesis, the AGW proponents have surely got to explain why, when the climate has varied for in a myriad of ways over all the history of the Earth with no human input, now it is different. They also have to make the case that the predicted climate is going to be a bad thing for humanity. They further have to be very sure about this given the vast resources being pumped into changing our way of life.
The sceptics amongst us have no obligation to provide a definitive explanation. The various hypotheses are interesting but make little difference to the central fact – climate has changed over geological eras and throughout human history – today is no different.