The Missing GW Link: New images shock scientists with view of sun's magnetic field power

X-ray imaging of the sun shows massive energy releases

Image above: Dubbed the “Swan” this X-ray image shows massive energy releases from the sun’s magnetic field, even while we are at the solar minimum in between sunspots cycles.

Last week, on the same day Al Gore was giving testimony to congress on made-made CO2 being the sole cause of Global Warming, NASA called a press conference in Washington DC to announce some spectacular new findings about the sun. Of course everybody in the press was so busy covering Gore’s big day, there was hadly any mention of what NASA announced.

What they announced was that a new X-ray imaging satellite called HINODE, launched in September 2006, has seen the first images that explain one of the biggest mysteries of the sun: why the corona is hotter than the suns surface. Magnetic reconnection seems to be the key, and these images go a long ways towards proving the theory.

But even more importantly, scientists expected to see a very quiet sun with the new x-ray imager, since we are at solar minimum right now. NASA announced we’d reached solar min on March 6th. The fact that the HINODE scientists saw huge explosive energy bursts even while the surface of the sun is nearly devoid of sunspots tells them that the suns magnetic field is still tremendously active. The suns magnetic field has been getting more active for the past hundred years, coincidentally at the same time CO2 on earth has been increasing along with the global mean temperature.

suns magentic activity

But it seems that coincidence makes CO2 a Red Herring.

The linkage between changes in the suns magnetic field and earths climate has been well documented. Global temps closely track solar cycles as measured by sunspot intensity. Sunpots are proxy indicators of changes in the suns magnetic field. The Danish Meteorological Institute first reported the correlation in a study going back centuries. Historic data reveal that whenever the sun got more active, the earth heated up, and vice versa. The best correlation was the Maunder Minimum.


But until now, we could not see energy being transported away from the sun via its magentic field, which is why many in the environmental community doubt the role of the sun in climate change. We couldn’t visualize the sun’s magnetic output. This new tool is going to open a whole new era of understanding how the sun works, and more importantly how changes on the sun link to climate changes on earth.

Of course I’m sure Mr. Gore will find a way to explain this away, since we can’t have any new science getting in the way of a “consensus” and a “debate thats over”.

Inconveniently, NASA also announced last week a new study that shows a clear sun-earth linkage in records kept by Eqyptians of the Nile river, rainfall, and auroral activity which is a direct indicator of solar activity. It seems the sun-earth climate linkage has been around way before SUV’s.

So what’s easier to believe as the cause of climate change? That a trace gas called CO2 that has increased on earth from about 280 PPM to 380 PPM in the last 100 years is the cause, or that the giant nuclear fireball a thousand times bigger than earth a mere 8 light-minutes away has been getting more active during the same period is the reason?

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
March 26, 2007 10:47 am

During Mr. Gore’s testimony last week, he was asked about the evidence that the CO2 increase in the atmosphere follows rather than precedes the increase in temperature. His explanation was that the earth’s “tilt and wobble” as it goes around the sun causes the increase in CO2 to sometimes come before and sometimes after the temperature goes up. I had not heard this before. Is this bull or is there any evidence behind it?
*** Moderators note: Milankovich cycles, which is what he was referring to, do in fact cause climate change over thousands of years in time. Since they change the angle of incidence for the sun, they can heat up oceans, causing CO2 release. So there is some truth to it.

George C. Benson, Jr - Trenton, New Jersey
March 26, 2007 10:53 am

Thank you so much for the truth. Now we need to get the media to start telling/reporting the truth.
Thanks again, and please keep up the good work.

March 26, 2007 10:53 am

Excellent article. I added it to my blog. I have much more on man’s supposed influence on global warming. Let’s share information. Thanks,
*** Moderators Note: I’ll take a look, thanks

Jeff Wood
March 26, 2007 12:05 pm

I always suspected the big yellow light in the sky served some sort of purpose.
I read recently that Mars and other planets and moons seem to have been warming. I haven’t found a source for the report, and wonder if the big yellow etc might be having an influence?
*** Moderators note: You can read about Mars and its global warming here at National Geographic:

Harry, Melbourne Australia
March 26, 2007 5:48 pm

Good Item. Small but crucial point, the so called consensus IPCC figure of Pre-Industrial levels of atmospheric CO2 (280ppmv) based upon Ice Data is probably WRONG. Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD. who has studied anthropologic contaminants in the cryosphere throughout the world for over 40 years, argues that ice cores are an incorrect medium to quantify CO2 contents of the atmosphere as they do not fulfill the essential closed system criteria. Please read the following items carefully as he discusses thoroughly physical and chemical mechanisms pertaining to ice core measurement.
Moreover a paper by Georg Ernst-Beck has revived early physical measurements of CO2.
Well what does this mean? The whole foundation of Anthropological CO2 Climate Change hypothesis is a shambles, models and CO2 forcings etc..are not representative of real world mechanisms. That is, global temperatures are obviously controlled by other terrestrial and celestial forces.
***Moderators note: Interesting point, well worth further study, thanks for sharing it.

March 26, 2007 5:54 pm

Mr. Watts, thank you so very much for sharing your knowledge. Have you read Michael Crichton’s “State of Fear”? He covers the truth about CO2 … the book is so good that I even read the appendix and bibliography! Suz
***Moderators note: I’ve read excerpts, but not the entire book. I spend most of my time reading press releases and scientific papers, so I don’t much time for book reading.
Crichton makes some good points.

March 26, 2007 10:31 pm

You’re responding to an argument I’ve never heard before, that CO2 is the only thing that affects global temperature. The record is pretty clear on this: before 1850, when CO2 concentration was lower and essentially constant, the main factor that affected global temperature was solar activity. It fits all the data we have, and the NASA report is just another example.
The data also show that CO2 concentration is higher and is changing to the point that now it is a stronger influence than solar activity. In fact, solar activity peaked in 1980 and has dropped since 1990, but temperature has continued to rise. The only factor that can explain the temperature rise is CO2.
You can find the data that show this for yourself on the web. For your convenience, I’ve assembled the most reliable information I could find on a web page called Global Warming: A Guide for the Perplexed. Check it out.
^^^Moderators note: You’ve never heard the argument that CO2 is the sole source of GW? I find that pretty hard to believe, especially when you conclusion page says “Global warming is caused by artificial greenhouse gas, mainly carbon dioxide.”

March 27, 2007 9:06 am

Thanks for responding. When I write things I always think they’re clear and then it turns out they’re not as clear as I thought.
In my earlier comment, I was saying that different things affect global average temperature, including solar activity.
But global warming is slightly different, referring to the rapid warmup of the last few decades. Since solar activity peaked in 1980, rising CO2 levels, caused primarily by artificial CO2 emissions, are the only plausible explanation.
I hope I’ve made it clearer. It looks clear to me but sometimes I’m wrong about that.
*** Looks clear now, no worries

March 29, 2007 11:30 pm

I have gone through the above article and it is interesting and I appreciate to the author and I to have a link related to refer with more information. and I feel it will be helpful to mysteries

Stephen Wilde
May 23, 2008 10:50 am

I wonder if some articles recently supplied by me to another site might be of interest.

%d bloggers like this: