AlterNews: News with Vision from AlterVisio
News
| Solar X-rays: Geomagnetic Field: |
|
From n3kl.org
R U designer? Get Informed
Buy Less, Recycle More
Years ago a guy in California had a great idea and he started a great website that has become a world network, the purpose is really simple: recycle what you don't need/use any longer and give it away for free.
FreeCycle is the site to visit.
Excelent Source for Design News
Design News Next is an excellent and up to date source for lots of Design News, competirtions, projects, and so forth. A great way to approach this sadly ego-centred profession called Design as a total share of knowledge.
Let us Join forces! The time is Now.
Together we can change the way people perceive Design, starting by ourselves.
If you see the need for a new approach to design, one for the real world as Papanek once wrote, a fragile world in peril and in the hands of the greedy/blind elites, then we are looking forward to talk to you, wherever you are located, whatever kind of design you do. Designers are real shapers, it is in our hands to seriously participate in shaping the shift of a mass consumption sick society into a We are One world society. We need a critical mass.
Send us your signals. The time is now.
Many people out there have started already.
Just Take a look.
Do you have some important news to share with other green designers?
Feel free to send them to AlterVisio, depending on the scope of your information we will publish it here on this page.
Useful links
Adobe Aesthetica Magazine
Anti Copying in Design (ACID)
Apple
Gallery Worldwide Arts Council Centre for Sustainable Design (CfSD)
Chartered Society of Designers (CSD)
Corbis Core 77 Creative Review Creative Handbook D&AD Design Business Association (DBA)
Design Talkboard Design Museum Dexigner
Getty Images HOW Design
Institute of Practitioners in Advertising (IPA)
Marketing Week Media Guardian
National Gallery Picture Library New Design Partners
Web Design Directory
Wake-up call: Climate Change
produced by human activity is a Scam
The weather on Earth is changing, that is no news for nobody, the whole Solar System is changing. Most of the Weather changes are due to the Sun Flares and a lot to the chemtrails sprayed all over. Global warming as it has been presented to us is indeed a scam, perpetrated by scientists with vested interests, but in need of crash courses in geology, logic and the philosophy of science.
As some of you know some thounsands of people, corporations and governments are the ones profiting from this make-believe.
People are confused, and that is thanks to what they get from the mass media, people believe almost always everything they read, hear or watch without using discernment.
And probably the worse: many designers, communicators and marketeers are taking advantage of this big scam in order to profit more. And this might continue until the day people start finally waking up and therefore
once and for all stop their endless and wasteful consumeristic lifestyles!
It is up to us to do something about it.
We are not suggesting that we shouldn't stop the demands for the urgent politicial actions that care for the health of the Planet and her inhabitants, we are not saying that we shouldn't care for the Planet and her sick status, neither we are saying we should continue killing trees, whales, polluting the oceans, rivers, lakes, treating animals so inhumanly or extracting oil and making a mess with the tectonic plates. We are not saying we should stop the necessary research to cease radically the use of fossil fuels and thus avoid the disclosure of existing truly Planet-friendly technologies.
All we are saying is: let us wake up people, let us move, the change is in our hands, because we are the solution, when we understand that together We Are One.
LATEST NEWS!!!
2012 and We Are waking Up... Finally!!!
Get it pathetic-clumsy Fearmongers, you are lost!!!!
and for all of you here a taste of honey...
full of Light!!!!
Inuit People on Sun Wrong ,
Stars Wrong , Earth Tilting on Axis!!
Global Warming is a vulgar Hoax!!!
Continued Empirical Evidence:
Climate Change is "Cyclical"
By National Science Foundation
Feb 24, 2011
page
Supported by what Mich Battros believes to be one of the most esteemed scientific bodies.
The National Science Foundation, displays hard evidence that climate change is cyclical.
It happened before - it will happen again and again and again.
Such evidence suggests so-called
"global warming" is a myth brought on
by political capitalists anxious to take
your money!!!
In the Late Ordovician Period of Earth's geologic history, about 450 million years ago, more than 75 percent of marine species perished and Earth scientists have been seeking to discover what caused the extinction. It was the second largest in Earth's history.
Now, using a new research method, investigators believe they are closer to finding an answer.
Employing a new way to measure ancient ocean temperatures, a team of researchers at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) recently discovered a link between ancient climate change and the Late Ordovician mass extinction. The team found the extinction event occurred during a glacial period when global temperatures became cooler and the volume of glacial ice increased.
Both the changes in temperature and the increase of continental ice sheets are factors that could have affected marine life in these ancient waters, said Woodward Fischer, an assistant professor of geo-biology at Caltech.
"Our tools are getting better to ask more questions about ancient climate, so we're really shaping our picture of what that world was like," he said.
In the past, measuring ancient ocean temperatures was based on measuring the ratios of oxygen isotopes found in minerals from ocean water. The challenge was knowing the concentration of isotopes in the ocean at that time, which was needed to determine past water temperatures. But, because there is no direct record of the isotopic composition of ancient oceans, it was difficult to determine the water temperature.
The new method, developed in the laboratory of John Eiler, Sharp Professor of Geology and professor of geochemistry at Caltech, determines the temperature of the ocean by examining the spatial organization of isotopes in fossils that existed in the Late Ordovician Period; in particular, the method looks at the extent to which rare isotopes group together into the same chemical unit in a mineral structure.
This new method "requires really well-preserved minerals, so we used fossils," explained Fischer.
"Shells are ideal for this technique."
Fossilized marine species shells were used from present-day Quebec, Canada, and from the mid-western United States.
Fischer said the types of species that went extinct during the Late Ordovician Period included mostly benthic invertebrates, or invertebrates that live on the ocean floor and filter plankton for food.
These were organisms such as trilobites and brachiopods. Paleozoic corals and cephalopods, which Fisher described as resembling "squids in a tube," were impacted as well.
Some vertebrates, primarily fish, also were impacted by the change in global temperature, but fossil evidence of these organisms is less common.
Eiler explained that the findings of this study revealed that during the Late Ordovician, the temperatures of tropical oceans were higher than they are today, but for a brief period, experienced a drop in temperature by five degrees. At the same time, the volume of ice in the poles expanded. After this glacial period, the ocean temperatures rose, and the ice volume returned to its earlier, lower amount.
"We've observed a cycle of climate variability," said Eiler, who explained that these findings can be used to learn more about changes in climate today.
source: Mitch Battros - Earth Changes Media
The missing sunspots:
Is this the big chill?
Scientists are baffled by what they’re seeing on the Sun’s surface – nothing at all. And this lack of activity could have a major impact on global warming. David Whitehouse investigates
Monday, 27 April 2009
The disappearance of sunspots happens every few years, but this time it's gone on far longer than anyone expected - and there is no sign of the Sun waking up.
AFP
The disappearance of sunspots happens every few years, but this time it's gone on far longer than anyone expected - and there is no sign of the Sun waking up.
Could the Sun play a greater role in recent climate change than has been believed?
Climatologists had dismissed the idea and some solar scientists have been reticent about it because of its connections with those who those who deny climate change. But now the speculation has grown louder because of what is happening to our Sun. No living scientist has seen it behave this way. There are no sunspots.
The disappearance of sunspots happens every few years, but this time it’s gone on far longer than anyone expected – and there is no sign of the Sun waking up. “This is the lowest we’ve ever seen. We thought we’d be out of it by now, but we’re not,” says Marc Hairston of the University of Texas. And it’s not just the sunspots that are causing concern.
There is also the so-called solar wind – streams of particles the Sun pours out – that is at its weakest since records began.
In addition, the Sun’s magnetic axis is tilted to an unusual degree. “This is the quietest Sun we’ve seen in almost a century,” says NASA solar scientist David Hathaway. But this is not just a scientific curiosity. It could affect everyone on Earth and force what for many is the unthinkable: a reappraisal of the science behind recent global warming.
Our Sun is the primary force of the Earth’s climate system, driving atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns. It lies behind every aspect of the Earth’s climate and is, of course, a key component of the greenhouse effect. But there is another factor to be considered. When the Sun has gone quiet like this before, it coincided with the earth cooling slightly and there is speculation that a similar thing could happen now. If so, it could alter all our predictions of climate change, and show that our understanding of climate change might not be anywhere near as good as we thought.
Sunspots are dark, cooler patches on the Sun’s surface that come and go in a roughly 11-year cycle, first noticed in 1843. They have gone away before. They were absent in the 17th century – a period called the “Maunder Minimum” after the scientist who spotted it. Crucially, it has been observed that the periods when the Sun’s activity is high and low are related to warm and cool climatic periods. The weak Sun in the 17th century coincided with the so-called Little Ice Age. The Sun took a dip between 1790 and 1830 and the earth also cooled a little. It was weak during the cold Iron Age, and active during the warm Bronze Age. Recent research suggests that in the past 12,000 years there have been 27 grand minima and 19 grand maxima.
Throughout the 20th century the Sun was unusually active, peaking in the 1950s and the late 1980s. Dean Pensell of NASA, says that, “since the Space Age began in the 1950s, solar activity has been generally high. Five of the ten most intense solar cycles on record have occurred in the last 50 years.” The Sun became increasingly active at the same time that the Earth warmed. But according to the scientific consensus, the Sun has had only a minor recent effect on climate change.
Many scientists believe that the Sun was the major player on the Earth’s climate until the past few decades, when the greenhouse effect from increasing levels of carbon dioxide overwhelmed it.
Computer models suggest that of the 0.5C increase in global average temperatures over the past 30 years, only 10-20 per cent of the temperature variations observed were down to the Sun, although some said it was 50 per cent.
But around the turn of the century things started to change. Within a few years of the Sun’s activity starting to decline, the rise in the Earth’s temperature began to slow and has now been constant since the turn of the century. This was at the same time that the levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide carried on rising. So, is the Sun’s quietness responsible for the tail-off in global warming and if not, what is?
There are some clues as to what’s going on. Although at solar maxima there are more sunspots on the Sun’s surface, their dimming effect is more than offset by the appearance of bright patches on the Sun’s disc called faculae – Italian for “little torches”. Overall, during an 11-year solar cycle the Sun’s output changes by only 0.1 per cent, an amount considered by many to be too small a variation to change much on earth. But there is another way of looking it. While this 0.1 per cent variation is small as a percentage, in terms of absolute energy levels it is enormous, amounting to a highly significant 1.3 Watts of energy per square metre at the Earth. This means that during the solar cycle’s rising phase from solar minima to maxima, the Sun’s increasing brightness has the same climate-forcing effect as that from increasing atmospheric greenhouse gasses. There is recent research suggesting that solar variability can have a very strong regional climatic influence on Earth – in fact stronger than any man-made greenhouse effect across vast swathes of the Earth. And that could rewrite the rules.
No one knows what will happen or how it will effect our understanding of climate change on Earth. If the Earth cools under a quiet Sun, then it may be an indication that the increase in the Sun’s activity since the Little Ice Age has been the dominant factor in global temperature rises. That would also mean that we have overestimated the sensitivity of the Earth’s atmosphere to an increase of carbon dioxide from the pre-industrial three parts per 10,000 by volume to today’s four parts per 10,000. Or the sun could compete with global warming, holding it back for a while. For now, all scientists can do, along with the rest of us, is to watch and wait.
Dr David Whitehouse is author of ‘The Sun: A Biography’ (John Wiley)
The Sun explained...
Core .
The energy of the Sun comes from nuclear fusion reactions that occur deep inside the core.
Radiative zone.
The area that surrounds the core. Energy travels through it by radiation
Convective zone.
This zone extends from the radiative zone to the Sun’s surface. It consists of “boiling” convection cells.
Photosphere.
The top layer of the Sun. It is this that we see when we look at the Sun in natural light
Filament A strand of solar plasma held up by the Sun’s magnetic field that can be seen against its surface Chromosphere A layer of the Sun’s atmosphere above the photosphere, around 2000km deep.
source: Mitch Battros - Earth Changes Media
Evidence of Sunspot Involvement in Climate Change Compelling
By Dr Kelvin Kemm - Engineering News
Nov 3, 2008
Over the last few years, the evidence that sunspots on our Sun are directly related to climate change on Earth has been steadily increasing. I explained the exact proposed mechanism in some detail previously. Great work in this field is being carried out by Dr Henrik Svensmark and coworkers in Denmark and elsewhere.
Briefly, the mechanism is that cosmic rays impact on the Earth from deep space. These cosmic rays penetrate our atmosphere and lead to the formation of cloud cover. The cosmic rays nucleate sites in the atmosphere, from which clouds form from the natural water vapour.
If one puts a spoonful of coffee powder into a cup of microwaved water, the water forms bubbles of foam on the coffee grains. This is basically the same principle as the cosmic rays forming clouds in the atmosphere.
The Earth’s magnetic field, which acts as a shielding, is altered by the Sun’s activity, which, in turn, is indicated by means of the number of sunspots. As the Earth’s magnetic shield varies, so the cloud cover varies. Few sunspots mean a weaker Earth shield, which means more cosmic rays, which mean more clouds, which mean a cooling Earth.
The correlation for this effect, going back thousands of years, is good, remarkably so. Scientifically, this looks believable, and it is consistent with the theory and observation.
In contrast, the argument that man-made carbon dioxide (CO2) is causing warming does not fit the facts at all. Firstly, there was no industrial CO2 produced in vast quantities when the Roman Warming period occurred, or when the Medieval Warming period occurred. Both are well documented in various archives, such as the historical and archaeological.
But there is more – global warming is extremely complex, and it is really naïve to believe that a relatively simple theory will explain it satisfactorily. It is far too simple just to say: CO2 traps heat and, therefore, more CO2 means more heat, and so we have global warming.
As the makers of heat-seeking missiles know very well, the CO2 in the atmosphere has ‘windows’ in it. This means that certain ‘heat frequencies’ pass through the atmosphere easily but other frequencies are trapped. It is these windows that the missile uses to hunt its prey. As a consequence, there are ‘frequency bands’ related to the CO2 cover of the Earth. In various ‘bands’, the infrared passes through easily, or not so easily.
Further, CO2 can trap incoming heat from space and outgoing heat being radiated from the Earth. The frequency bands linked to the CO2 also become saturated – they cannot just keep sucking up more and more heat. Essentially, this CO2 argument is very complex.
Over the last century, the temperature changes in our planet’s atmosphere, let alone ground and sea, just do not match the atmospheric CO2 concentration at all. This is cause for warning bells that, perhaps, this whole CO2 argument is not correct.
In comparison, the cosmic ray and sunspot information match well. However, as I have said, this whole atmospheric temperature issue is very complex, and no capable scientist in the field is going to say otherwise.
Right now, we have been experi- encing a rather long period of sunspot inactivity on our Sun, some 200 days plus. This has happened before.
Formal sunspot data collection started in 1749 and has been monitored ever since. But long before that date, sunspots were known and informal measurements were taken. It is, therefore, known that the Little Ice Age, which took place from the midseventeenth century to the eighteenth century, was preceded and paralleled by a period of some 50 years with a virtual absence of sunspots, according to informal records.
In more recent times, we have had relatively long periods without sunspots. This year, we passed the mark of 200 days without sunspots, which is unusual. In fact, the Sun has been blanker now than in any other year since 1954, when it was spotless for 241 days, and this year is now being called the Sun’s quietest year of the space age.
The Sun was also very quiet in 1913, so runs of 200-plus spotless days are rare, but not that rare. As I have already said, the global warming and cooling issue is complex, and so a run of 200-plus days without sunspots cannot be compared to a 50-year quiet period during the Little Ice Age, but it is cause for some scientific thinking.
Further, a cooling that could be initiated by a lack of sunspots will induce other climatic effects that will either favour warming or cooling. The jury is still out on exactly what happens, but the evidence for sunspot involvement in climate change is just too compelling for it to be brushed aside by those who want to cling to the simplistic idea that man-made CO2 is the only factor.
source: Earth Changes Media
Latest Research Says "It's The Sun" Which is Causing Loss of Arctic Ice
by Mitch Battros - Earth Changes Media
Apr 22, 2008
The shrinking expanse of Arctic sea ice is increasingly vulnerable to the Sun, new research concludes. The study, by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and Colorado State University (CSU), finds that unusually sunny weather contributed to last summer's record loss of Arctic ice, while similar weather conditions in past summers do not appear to have had comparable impacts.
The study, which draws on observations from instruments on a new group of NASA satellites known as the "A-Train," will be published tomorrow in Geophysical Research Letters.
It was funded by NASA and the National Science Foundation, which is NCAR's principal sponsor.
This new research release by the National Center for Atmospheric Research also supports ECM's "Equation" as outlined in their study below.
"In an increased sunshine world, the thinner sea ice is becoming increasingly sensitive to year-to-year variations in weather and cloud patterns," says NCAR's Jennifer Kay, the lead author. Their finds show that in addition to solar radiation, other factors such as changes in wind patterns and possibly shifts in ocean circulation patterns also influence sea ice loss. In particular, strong winds along regions of sea ice retreat were important to last year's loss
of ice.
Equation by Mitch Battros:
Sunspots = (charged particles)
Solar Flares = Magnetic Field Shift =
Shifting Ocean and Jet Stream Currents =
Extreme Weather and Human Disruption!
Recent Jet Stream Study Confirms ECM's "Equation" Published in 1998
by Mitch Battros - Earth Changes Media
Apr 21, 2008
A new study released by a team of scientists at the Carnegie Institution, indicate the Jet Stream has shifted during solar cycle 23. The study outcome covered a span of 23 years ending in 2001. Their analysis shows the Jet Streams in both hemispheres have shifted toward the poles. The results are published in the April 18 Geophysical Research Letters.
Take note the study covers the period of solar Cycle 23 which peaked (more or less) in 2001, although there were some 'record breaking' surprises in 2003.
Cristina Archer and Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology tracked changes in the average position and strength of jet streams using records compiled by the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, the National Centers for Environmental Protection, and the National Center for Atmospheric Research. The data included outputs from weather prediction models, conventional observations from weather balloons and surface instruments, and remote observations from satellites.
"The jet streams are the driving factor for weather in half of the globe," says Archer.
"So, as you can imagine, changes in the jets have the potential to affect large populations and major climate systems."
I have long argued charged particles many emitted by the Sun has a direct causal affect on Earth's "weather". It happens when the Earth's magnetic fields shifts, in-turn causing a shift in ocean and jet stream currents. This study also indicates hurricanes will become more powerful as this trend continues. The study reports: "hurricanes, whose development tends to be inhibited by jet streams, may become more powerful and more frequent as the jet streams move away from the sub-tropical zones where hurricanes are born."
I would further suggest all natural phenomena events will escalate bringing us into 2011/2012 when Cycle 24 reaches its 'apex' (maximum). All this and more is documented in "Solar Rain - The Earth Changes Have Begun".
Solar radiation reaches an 11-year high again in 2011, making things interesting for those reliant on satellites -- the U.S. military included. The last one reached its apex in April 2000, so it's gonna get warm again soon. And while solar flares can and do damage satellites even in non-peak times, 2011 still looms big.
Radiation from solar flares or coronal holes -- areas on the sun that can cause geomagnetic storming past Earth similar to a flare -- can lead to increased “drag” on satellites as well as affect communications, Crown said.
The Air Force has collected data on the space weather environment for “many years” and has characterized the natural environment in space from charged particles to radiation, Lt. Gen. Michael Hamel -- commander of the Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center at
Los Angeles Air Force Base -- said at an April 10 briefing . . .
“We know different orbital regimes have different characteristics, we know the degradation that happens in certain subsystems, and so we build this into the specifications and standards of the materials and the designs, and we put that margin into that so if we say . . . that a system must have a design life of 10 years, that isn’t just something that you assert; you actually have to run the tests for the components, the individual subsystems, so that you can actually statistically and predictably be able to say it’s going to live that long,” the three-star said.
Global Warming 70,000 Years Ago - Whoops, Maybe It's a Cycle After All
By Associated Press
Apr 24, 2008 - 10:52:15 PM
WASHINGTON - Human beings may have had a brush with extinction 70,000 years ago, an extensive genetic study suggests. The human population at that time was reduced to small isolated groups in Africa, apparently because of drought, according to an analysis released Thursday.
The report notes that a separate study by researchers at Stanford University estimated the number of early humans may have shrunk as low as 2,000 before numbers began to expand again in the early Stone Age.
"This study illustrates the extraordinary power of genetics to reveal insights into some of the key events in our species' history," Spencer Wells, National Geographic Society explorer in residence, said in a statement. "Tiny bands of early humans, forced apart by harsh environmental conditions, coming back from the brink to reunite and populate the world. Truly an epic drama, written in our DNA."
Wells is director of the Genographic Project, launched in 2005 to study anthropology using genetics. The report was published in the American Journal of Human Genetics.
Previous studies using mitochondrial DNA—which is passed down through mothers—have traced modern humans to a single "mitochondrial Eve," who lived in Africa about 200,000 years ago.
The migrations of humans out of Africa to populate the rest of the world appear to have begun about 60,000 years ago, but little has been known about humans between Eve and that dispersal.
The new study looks at the mitochondrial DNA of the Khoi and San people in South Africa which appear to have diverged from other people between 90,000 and 150,000 years ago.
The researchers led by Doron Behar of Rambam Medical Center in Haifa, Israel and Saharon Rosset of IBM T.J. Watson Research Center in Yorktown Heights, N.Y., and Tel Aviv University concluded that humans separated into small populations prior to the Stone Age, when they came back together and began to increase in numbers and spread to other areas.
Eastern Africa experienced a series of severe droughts between 135,000 and 90,000 years ago and the researchers said this climatological shift may have contributed to the population changes, dividing into small, isolated groups which developed independently.
Paleontologist Meave Leakey, a Genographic adviser, commented: "Who would have thought that as recently as 70,000 years ago, extremes of climate had reduced our population to such small numbers that we were on the very edge of extinction."
Today more than 6.6 billion people inhabit the globe, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
The research was funded by the National Geographic Society, IBM, the Waitt Family Foundation, the Seaver Family Foundation, Family Tree DNA and Arizona Research Labs.
Greenpeace founder now backs nuclear power
Patrick Moore tells the Boise chamber that the world must wean itself from fossil fuels to reduce greenhouse gases.
by Rocky Barker -
Edition Date: 04/24/08
Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore says there is no proof global warming is caused by humans, but it is likely enough that the world should turn to nuclear power - a concept tied closely to the underground nuclear testing his former environmental group formed to oppose.
The chemistry of the atmosphere is changing, and there is a high-enough risk that "true believers" like Al Gore are right that world economies need to wean themselves off fossil fuels to reduce greenhouse gases, he said.
"It's like buying fire insurance," Moore said. "We all own fire insurance even though there is a low risk we are going to get into an accident."
The only viable solution is to build hundreds of nuclear power plants over the next century, Moore told the Boise Metro Chamber of Commerce on Wednesday. There isn't enough potential for wind, solar, hydroelectric, and geothermal or other renewable energy sources, he said.
With development of coal-fired electric generation stopped cold over greenhouse gases, the only alternative to nuclear power for producing continuous energy at the levels needed is natural gas. But climate change isn't the only reason to move away from fossil fuels.
Fossil fuels also are a major health threat. "Coal causes the worst health impacts of anything we are doing today," Moore said. Plus, uranium can be found within the United States and also comes in large quantities from Canada and Australia. Nuclear Power reduces the reliance on supplies in dangerous places including the Middle East, he said.
Army Report Says Climate Change
Caused by Sun
By Nicola Scafetta and Bruce J. West
Jun 6, 2008 - 2:29:08 PM
In the March, 2008 issue of Physics Today, Dr. Bruce West, the chief scientist of the Army Research Office's mathematical and information science directorate, wrote that the Sun's turbulent dynamics are linked with the Earth's complex ecosystem. "The Sun could account for as much as 70 percent of the increase in Earth's average temperature."
Equation: Sunspots => Solar Flares => Magnetic Field Shift => Shifting Ocean and Jet Stream Currents => Extreme Weather and Human Disruption (mitch battros)
The causes of global warming--the increase of approximately 0.8±0.1 °C in the average global temperature near Earth's surface since 1900--are not as apparent as some recent scientific publications and the popular media indicate. We contend that the changes in Earth's average surface temperature are directly linked to two distinctly different aspects of the Sun's dynamics: the short-term statistical fluctuations in the Sun's irradiance and the longer-term solar cycles. This argument for directly linking the Sun's dynamics to the response of Earth's climate is based on our research and augments the interpretation of the causes of global warming presented in the United Nations 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.1
The most debated issue in contemporary science is the cause or causes of global warming, with the popular media contending that the issue has been resolved and that the majority of scientists concur. The "majority opinion" is based on the analysis of global warming done using large-scale computer codes that incorporate all identified physical and chemical mechanisms into global circulation models (GCMs) in an attempt to recreate and understand the variability in Earth's average temperature. The IPCC report1 concludes that the contribution of solar variability to global warming is negligible, to a certainty of 95%. It is reported that the "majority" believes the average warming observed since the beginning of the industrial era is due to the increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.
Modeling TSI variability
Earth's atmosphere, landmasses, and oceans absorb and redistribute the total solar irradiance (TSI) by means of coupled nonlinear hydrothermal, geochemical, and radiative dynamic processes that produce Earth's globally averaged temperature at a given time. Versions of those physical mechanisms are included in the GCMs, but what is not addressed in the simulations are the statistics of the time series. Those series consist of the monthly values of temperature anomalies. The statistical variability in Earth's average temperature is interpreted as noise; the temperature fluctuations are thought to contain no useful information and are consequently smoothed to emphasize the presumably more important long-time changes in the average global temperature, typically on the order of years.
According to the central limit theorem, the statistics of the fluctuations in such large-dimensional networks ought to be Gaussian.2 The fact that they are not remains unexplained. The non-Gaussian behavior prompted us to study temperature fluctuations as a problem in nonequilibrium statistical physics wherein statistical fluctuations often provide useful information about the transport properties of complex phenomena. An example would be the fluctuation– dissipation theorem, in which the response of a network to a perturbation is determined by the network's unperturbed autocorrelation function.
The variations in TSI are indicative of the Sun's turbulent dynamics, as evidenced by changes in the number, duration, and intensity of solar flares and sunspots, and by the intermittency in the time intervals between dark spots and bright faculae. That time variation in TSI induces similar changes in Earth's average temperature and produces trends that move the global temperature up and down for tens or even hundreds of years. Our conclusions depart from those of the GCM simulations. We maintain that the variations in Earth's temperature are not noise, but contain substantial information about the source of variability, in particular the variations in TSI. Establishing this direct connection between the complex dynamics of the Sun and Earth requires a new kind of linking--one associated with the transfer of information between complex networks, even when the linking is extremely weak, as it is in the Sun–Earth network.
We showed that the stochastic properties of the average global temperature are linked to the statistics of TSI.2 It is the linking of the complexity of Earth to the complexity of the Sun that forces Earth's temperature anomalies to adopt the TSI statistics. Consequently, both the fluctuations in TSI, using the solar flare time series as a surrogate, and Earth's average temperature time series are observed to have inverse power-law statistical distributions. Specifically, if t is the time between events, where an event is a solar flare or a fluctuation in Earth's temperature, the distribution of time intervals between events P(t) is an inverse power law; that is, P(t) ≈ A/tα, where A is a normalization constant. The inverse power-law index α turns out to be the same for both the solar flare and temperature anomaly time series, even though the cross-correlation of the two vanishes except at the lowest frequencies, where quasi-periodic solar cycles dominate the dynamics.
The scaling of the statistical distribution of the TSI time series was tested by randomly changing the order of the data points. If the time series were internally correlated, the resulting distribution would have changed from the original, but that did not happen. The invariance of the distribution under shuffling indicates that the statistics of the time series is non-Poisson and renewal--meaning that with the generation of each new event, the process is renewed. The same was determined to be true of the global temperature time series.
Complexity matching
The statistics of solar flares, which we used as a surrogate for the fluctuations in TSI, are described by a non-Gaussian distribution. The behavior of such limit distributions requires a generalization of the central limit theorem to the case in which the second moment of the variate diverges. Such processes were studied by Paul Lévy before World War II, and now bear his name. The solar flare statistics were shown to be describable by such a Lévy distribution and we assumed that intermittent solar flares perturb the intrinsic fluctuations in Earth's average temperature. The end result of this perturbation is that the statistics of the temperature anomalies inherit the statistical structure that was evident in the intermittency of the solar flare data.2 The inverse power-law index α for solar flares was determined to be 2.14, whereas α for the air temperature was 2.11 globally, 2.20 for the Northern Hemisphere, 2.09 for the Southern Hemisphere, 2.21 over land, and 2.06 over the ocean. The near equivalence in indices occurs because of a newly identified phenomenon, the complexitymatching effect,3 described below, and suggests the presence of a subtle but persistent solar signature in climate fluctuations on short time scales. Note that this climate response to complexity is separate and distinct from the response to solar cycles.
Thus, the Sun's influence on Earth's temperature is subtle because it is not just an energy transport process but also an information transfer. According to linear response theory in statistical physics, a network S responds to a perturbation P by means of a linear transfer equation, whose kernel, the response function, is determined by the fluctuation–dissipation theorem given that the perturbation is sufficiently weak. When S and P are non-Poisson renewal processes, the response of S is maximal when the complexity of the two networks, as measured by the inverse power-law indices, is matched.3 For the Sun–Earth one-way linking, S is the Earth and P is the Sun. The complexity-matching effect in the Sun–Earth network is evident in the equality of the inverse power-law indices.
Solar cycles
Incorporating the influence of solar cycles into this thermodynamically closed climate modeling strategy reveals coordinated variability over even longer time scales. Recent heuristic studies indicate that the climate time response parameter τ, analogous to the Onsager relaxation time in statistical physics, might be 5–10 years.4,5 By using a climate time response τ of 7.5 years and the phenomenological 0.1 °C amplitude of the 11-year solar cycle (see reference 1, page 674, for details) as constraints on a simple two-parameter model in the tradition of the earliest climate models, we recently showed that it is possible to reconstruct a phenomenological solar signature (PSS) of climate for the last four centuries.5 In the figure, the interval from 1950 to 2010 is displayed with two such PSS reconstructions derived from two alternative TSI inputs. The figure shows excellent agreement between the 11-year PSS cycles and the cycles observed in the smoothed average global temperature data; a 22-year cycle component in the temperature also matches the 22-year PSS cycle very well. In particular, since 2002 the temperature data present a global cooling, not a warming! This cooling seems to have been induced by decreased solar activity from the 2001 maximum to the 2007 minimum as depicted in two distinct TSI reconstructions.
Thus the average global temperature record presents secular patterns of 22- and 11-year cycles and a short timescale fluctuation signature (with apparent inverse power-law statistics), both of which appear to be induced by solar dynamics. The same patterns are poorly reproduced by present-day GCMs and are dismissively interpreted as internal variability (noise) of climate. The nonequilibrium thermodynamic models we used suggest that the Sun is influencing climate significantly more than the IPCC report claims. If climate is as sensitive to solar changes as the above phenomenological findings suggest, the current anthropogenic contribution to global warming is significantly overestimated. We estimate that the Sun could account for as much as 69% of the increase in Earth's average temperature, depending on the TSI reconstruction used.5 Furthermore, if the Sun does cool off, as some solar forecasts predict will happen over the next few decades, that cooling could stabilize Earth's climate and avoid the catastrophic consequences predicted in the IPCC report.
2008 Coolest For At Least Five Years
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Man-made global warming advocates are scrambling to explain away the fact that 2008 has so far been the coolest year in five years, as climate change alarmists face embarrassment amidst a barrage of evidence that the planet has embarked on a clear and natural cooling trend.
There has been no global warming since 1998 as temperatures leveled off and are now beginning to plummet as a result of dwindling sunspot activity.
“The first half of 2008 was the coolest for at least five years, the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) said on Wednesday,” reports Reuters, adding that it may actually be the coolest since 2000, but the rest of the article is a strained and bias effort to pin the blame solely on the periodic weather event La Nina.
In reality, there has been no global warming since 1998 as temperatures leveled off and are now beginning to plummet as a result of dwindling sunspot activity.
A dramatic cooling trend is being observed across the planet even as people like Al Gore continue to claim that the threat of global warming mandates the poor and middle class be hit with CO2 taxes in order to prevent climate change.
Both anecdotal evidence and hard data indicates that the planet is in the beginning stages of a significant downturn in global temperatures.
Following the end of the Sun’s most active period in over 11,000 years, the last 10 years have displayed a clear cooling trend as temperatures post-1998 leveled out and are now plummeting.
China recently experienced its coldest winter in 100 years while northeast America was hit by record snow levels and Britain suffered its coldest April in decades as late-blooming daffodils were pounded with hail and snow on an almost daily basis. The British summer has also left many yearning for global warming, with temperatures in June and July rarely struggling to get over 16 degrees and on one occasion even dropping as low as 9 degrees in the middle of the afternoon.
“Summer heat continues in short supply, continuing a trend that has dominated much of the 21st Century’s opening decade,” reports the Chicago Tribune. “There have been only 162 days 90 degrees or warmer at Midway Airport over the period from 2000 to 2008. That’s by far the fewest 90-degree temperatures in the opening nine years of any decade on record here since 1930.”
According to an Associated Press report, The Farmers Almanac is now also predicting “below-average temperatures for most of the U.S.” The publication boasts of an 85 per cent accuracy rate for its forecasts which are given two years in advance.
“The almanac’s 2009 edition, which goes on sale Tuesday, says at least two-thirds of the country can expect colder than average temperatures, with only the Far West and Southeast in line for near-normal readings,” states the article.
The reason? Sunspot activity has dwindled. There have only been a handful of days in the past two months where any sunspot activity has been observed and over 400 spotless days have been recorded in the current solar cycle.
As we reported last week, the Armagh observatory, which has been measuring sun cycles for over 200 years. predicts that global temperatures will drop by two degrees over the next 20 years as solar activity grinds to a halt and the planet drastically cools down, potentially heralding the onset of a new ice age.
“Based on the past Armagh measurements, this suggests that over the next two decades, global temperatures may fall by about 2 degrees C — that is, to a level lower than any we have seen in the last 100 years….”Temperatures have already fallen by about 0.5 degrees C over the past 12 months and, if this is only the start of it, it would be a serious concern,” concludes David Watt.
In addition, Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera of the Institute of Geophysics at the University of Mexico states that “In about ten years the Earth will enter a “little ice age” which will last from 60 to 80 years and may be caused by the decrease in solar activity,” according to a report in the major Mexican newspaper Milenio Diario.
Polar Bear Population Increased Dramatically Since 70's
By Polar Bear Blog
Sep 18, 2008 - 6:55:08 AM
Thanks to the mainstream media, we've all heard about the dire plight of polar bears because of global warming. Here's some statistics which might make you think otherwise. Since the 1970s, while much of the world was warming, polar bear numbers increased dramatically, from roughly 5,000 to 25,000 bears -- a higher polar bear population than has existed at any time in the twentieth century.
Environmental activists have presented only one academic study that shows any negative effect of warming temperatures on polar bears, and only anecdotal evidence of bears drowning and eating each other, says H. Sterling Burnett, senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis.
Other, more comprehensive research suggests the plight of that one population does not reflect the polar bear population trend as a whole:
Since the 1970s, while much of the world was warming, polar bear numbers increased dramatically, from roughly 5,000 to 25,000 bears -- a higher polar bear population than has existed at any time in the twentieth century.
Scientists believe polar bears thrived in the past in temperatures even warmer than at present -- during the medieval warm period 1,000 years ago and during the Holocene Climate Optimum between 5,000 and 9,000 years ago.
Dr. Mitchell Taylor, a biologist with Nunavut Territorial government in Canada says the polar bear population in Canada alone has increased 25 percent from 12,000 to 15,000 during the past decade, with 11 of Canada's 13 polar bear populations stable or increasing in number.
Groups such as the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) have written on the threats allegedly posed to polar bears populations from global warming. But their analysis isn't supported by the data, says Burnett: Only two bear populations -- accounting for about 16.4 percent of the total number of bears -- are decreasing, and they are in areas where air temperatures have actually fallen, such as the Baffin Bay region.
By contrast, another two populations -- about 13.6 percent of the total number -- are growing, and they live in areas where air temperatures have risen, near the Bering Strait and the Chukchi Sea.
As for the rest, 10 populations representing about 45.4 percent of the total number of bears are stable, and the status of the remaining six populations is unknown.
The above is from the National Center for Policy Analysis which also has an interesting comment on the Stern Report.
source: Earth Changes Media
