The Sun dominates climate change
By Dr. Tim Ball and Tom Harris
Why are the public generally unaware of the important research that connects variations in the output of the Sun with climate change? They should know about it, since the Sun is responsible for far more climate change than anything we cause.
The reason for this ignorance is that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the source of most people's understanding about the field, was deliberately directed to study only the human causes of climate change. They did this because it narrowed their focus to just a few variables, particularly carbon dioxide (CO2). It came from industrialized nations and the objective was to shut them down. Show this by-product of industry was causing Earth-destroying global warming and you could justify shutting them down. The problem is you cannot identify the human-caused portion if you don’t understand natural climate change - and we don’t.
We have no control of the Sun, of course, so the IPCC pays no attention to sunspots, an important gauge of solar activity. In fact, the IPCC indicate they would not consider sunspots even if they did look at all causes.
Scientists have known about the apparent relationship between sunspot numbers and global temperatures for centuries. In Europe, it began in 1613 when Galileo, using the newly invented telescope, started recording these darker regions on the Sun. It caused a religious and social uproar because everything in the universe beyond the moon was supposed to be pristine and unblemished.
The first, most significant change to our understanding of sunspot patterns came in 1848 when, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Swiss astronomer and mathematician Johann Wolf:
devised a daily method of estimating solar activity by counting the number of individual spots and groups of spots on the face of the sun. Wolf chose to compute his sunspot number by adding 10 times the number of groups to the total count of individual spots, because neither quantity alone completely captured the level of activity. Today, Wolf sunspot counts continue, since no other index of the sun's activity reaches into the past as far and as continuously.
The basic observation was that a high number of spots related to a warm Earth and fewer spots with cold. Until the 1990s, no plausible explanation for this relationship existed, so the IPCC was then justified to exclude the sunspot factor. However, in 1991, Friis-Christensen and Lassen published a fledgling theory, “Length of the Solar Cycle: An Indicator of Solar Activity Closely Associated with Climate.” It was not the answer but framed the question. By 1996, Friis-Christensen and Svensmark published, “Variation of Cosmic Ray Flux and Global Cloud coverage – A Missing Link in Solar-Climate Relationships.”
Again, the IPCC was wise not to accept the untested new theory. However, by 2000 the theory was evaluated empirically despite attempts to delay the evidence. What is now known as the Svensmark or Cosmic Theory has been thoroughly tested and confirmed and thus is no longer just a theory.
Here is how it works. Originating from outside the Solar System, galactic cosmic rays, high speed atomic nuclei or other particles traveling through space, continuously bombard the Earth. To reach us they must pass through, and are deflected by, the Sun’s magnetic field. That field varies in strength, as evidenced by the changing sunspot numbers, and so the amount of cosmic radiation reaching the Earth also varies accordingly.
As the rays penetrate the Earth’s atmosphere, they form particles in the lower atmosphere called condensation nuclei, which are particles around which water can form to create water droplets. These are the microscopic form of liquid water that is visible as clouds. It takes about a million of these particles to form a moderate-sized raindrop, so you get an idea of the density. That density reduces the amount of sunlight that can penetrate the cloud to heat the Earth’s surface. The cloud is like a screen in a greenhouse controlling the temperature, so the variations in activity on the Sun visible as sunspots is cause and effect related to global temperature.
Tests were necessary to prove that the Cosmic Radiation did, in fact, generate condensation nuclei. Science writer Nigel Calder reported that the experimental proof for Svensmark’s theory was delayed at the CERN facility in Switzerland where the experiments were conducted:
The Director General of CERN stirred controversy last month, by saying that the CLOUD team’s report should be politically correct about climate change. The implication was that they should on no account endorse the Danish heresy – Henrik Svensmark’s hypothesis that most of the global warming of the 20th Century can be explained by the reduction in cosmic rays due to livelier solar activity, resulting in less low cloud cover and warmer surface temperatures.
I (Dr. Ball) published a paper relating the cloud cover theory to historical events using Little Ice Age art. The importance of this study is that we are currently approaching sunspot numbers associated with those in the Little Ice Age, which is why many of us are warning of global cooling. This contradicts the government and main stream media-created fake news of human-caused global warming, so naturally, these discoveries are hidden from public view to the extent possible. Through the Internet, however, the real story is slowly becoming more broadly known. It is about time.
___________________
Dr. Tim Ball is an environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Manitoba. Tom Harris is executive director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition.
=================================
Dear Dave,
I got married in May, and my wife brought student loan debt into the marriage. I had some savings before the wedding, and I could pay this off immediately without putting us in a bind. But is this “her” debt, or should I look at it as “our” debt?
Ernest
Dear Ernest,
Absolutely, you should view it as “our” debt. It came with the territory when you two walked down the aisle.
A lot of people don’t use the old-fashioned marriage vows anymore, but The Book of Common Prayer reads, “… for richer, for poorer, in sickness and health, and unto thee I pledge my worldly goods.” Basically, that means you’re saying, “I’m ready to take a bullet for you. I’m going to do whatever it takes to serve you, and vice versa.” You’re joining your separate lives into one.
In addition to all this, you guys need to be in agreement on how you’re going to handle money. In other words, it all gets worked out together with both of you sitting down and planning your financial future as one. This is called a budget. Like everything else, you work on it together. It’s not a situation where one of you is making all the decisions or bailing out the other.
But if you guys are on the same page—if your relationship is healthy and you’re in agreement about moving forward with shared dreams and goals—then I’d say write the check today and knock out that debt!
—Dave
(Which job?)
Word count: 245
Dear Dave,
I’ve been unemployed for three months, but recently I received two job offers. One is a state job that would pay $50,000 a year. The other is a one-year contract for a position in Afghanistan that pays $200,000. I know I’d like both jobs, so which would be the smartest choice?
Nick
Dear Nick,
If it were me, I’d take the state job. I know that any kind of situation with six figures attached to it looks and sounds wonderful, but in my mind we’re talking about a career choice versus risk. Plus, I’m a firm believer in the idea that people make better decisions when they think in terms of 10 years from now rather than 10 or 12 months down the road.
In addition to the risk factor, the biggest problem with the offer in Afghanistan is that once it’s over, it’s over. Then you’re right back where you are now. You may have money in your bank account, but you’re unemployed all over again.
You know, one of the things I’ve noticed over the years is when wealthy people assess a financial opportunity, they almost always think in five-, 10- and 20-year blocks of time. We’re talking long term here. There’s not a whiff of living paycheck to paycheck or “Thank God, it’s Friday. Oh, God, it’s Monday!” on them.
Take the state job and fashion a good, long-lasting career for yourself. Don’t go chasing money on the short term!
—Dave
* Dave Ramsey is America’s trusted voice on money and business. He’s authored four New York Times best-selling books: Financial Peace, More Than Enough, The Total Money Makeover and EntreLeadership. The Dave Ramsey Show is heard by more than 5 million listeners each week on more than 500 radio stations. Follow Dave on Twitter at @DaveRamsey and on the web at daveramsey.com
====================
Dear Dave,
My brother asked me to put his name on my credit card as an authorized user. He said it will help improve his credit score. Is this true, and would it help my score in any way?
Anna
Dear Anna,
Your brother is wrong. It will not improve his credit score at all. As an authorized user, he is not the owner of the debt. There’s a high likelihood that it will affect your credit score in a negative way, though, because there’s a good chance he’ll do some dumb things with your card.
Look at it this way. Why would someone give him credit, or raise his credit score, just for using your credit? It doesn’t make sense. Your credit score is affected by things like whether or not you pay your bill on time. The card isn’t in his name, so really all this amounts to is him having fun with your card, and you’re the one who’s liable for the damage. The truth is that authorized users shouldn’t even show up on a credit report.
It sounds like your brother has some financial problems. While I admire the fact that he wants to fix things, this is not the answer. Don’t misunderstand what I’m saying, Anna. Chances are he’s not trying to con you. He probably just got some bad information. But the hard truth is this: If you go along with his idea, it’s not going to help him, and it’s going to hurt you. Don’t do it!
—Dave
(Season tickets are a luxury)
Word count: 271
Dear Dave,
In terms of a family’s financial plan, when is it okay to purchase something like NFL season tickets? Is this the kind of thing that should wait until you’re debt-free and can afford to pay cash for them?
Greg
Dear Greg,
Absolutely, you should wait until you’re debt-free and can pay cash. That kind of thing is a prime example of an expensive, luxury purchase.
I’m an NFL season ticket holder for the Tennessee Titans. But I’ve been debt-free for years, and my family’s financial future is very secure. Whether the Titans win or lose, or whether I watch the games in person or in front of the television, has no impact on their security. However, if you’re sitting there with credit card debt, a car payment and living paycheck to paycheck, you’ve got no business buying season tickets. Get yourself out of debt, build an emergency fund, and make sure your family is taken care of first. Then you can have some fun. Live like no one else so that later you can live like no one else. And then, if that includes season tickets to your favorite football, baseball or hockey team, have a blast!
Remember, this kind of thing is entertainment. I know a lot of silly people out there act like whoever wins a football game is a matter of life and death, but it’s just a game. Your life and your financial future are not games, and they’re not things to be taken lightly. First things first, Greg. There will be plenty of time for that kind of fun when you can afford it!
—Dave
* Dave Ramsey is America’s trusted voice on money and business. He’s authored four New York Times best-selling books: Financial Peace, More Than Enough, The Total Money Makeover and EntreLeadership. The Dave Ramsey Show is heard by more than 5 million listeners each week on more than 500 radio stations. Follow Dave on Twitter at @DaveRamsey and on the web at daveramsey.com.
