Solar physicist sees global cooling ahead

Via the GWPF: Recent research by Professor Valentina Zharkova (Northumbria University) and colleagues has shed new light on the inner workings of the Sun. If correct, this new discovery means that future solar cycles and variations in the Sun’s activity can be predicted more accurately.

The research suggests that the next three solar cycles will see solar activity reduce significantly into the middle of the century, producing conditions similar to those last seen in the 1600s – during the Maunder Minimum. This may have implications for temperatures here on Earth. Future solar cycles will serve as a test of the astrophysicists’ work, but some climate scientists have not welcomed the research and even tried to suppress the new findings.

New Solar Research Raises Climate Questions, Triggers Attacks

To most of us the sun seems unchanging. But if you observe its surface, it is seething with vast explosions and ejections. This activity has its origin in intense magnetic fields generated by swirling currents in the sun’s outer layer – scientists call it the solar dynamo.

It produces the well-known 11-year solar cycle which can be seen as sunspots come and go on the sun’s surface.

But models of the solar dynamo have only been partially successful in predicting the solar cycle – and that might be because a vital component is missing.

After studying full-disc images of the sun’s magnetic field, Professor Valentina Zharkova of Northumbria University and colleagues, discovered that the sun’s dynamo is actually made of two components – coming from different depths inside the sun.

The interaction between these two magnetic waves either amplifies solar activity or damps it down. Professor Zharkova’s observations suggest we are due for a prolonged period of low solar activity.

Professor Valentina Zharkova: 

We will see it from 2020 to 2053, when the three next cycles will be very reduced magnetic field of the sun. Basically what happens is these two waves, they separate into the opposite hemispheres and they will not be interacting with each other, which means that resulting magnetic field will drop dramatically nearly to zero. And this will be a similar conditions like in Maunder Minimum. 

What will happen to the Earth remains to be seen and predicted because nobody has developed any program or any models of terrestrial response – they are based on this period when the sun has maximum activity — when the sun has these nice fluctuations, and its magnetic field [is] very strong. But we’re approaching to the stage when the magnetic field of the sun is going to be very, very small. 

She suggests it could be a repeat of the so-called Maunder Minimum – a period in the 17th century with little solar activity that may have influenced a cooling on Earth.

Whatever we do to the planet, if everything is done only by the sun, then the temperature should drop similar like it was in the Maunder Minimum. At least in the Northern hemisphere, where this temperature is well protocoled and written. We didn’t have many measurements in the Southern hemisphere, we don’t know what will happen with that, but in the Northern hemisphere, we know it’s very well protocoled. The rivers are frozen. There are winters and no summers, and so on. 

So we only hope because these Maunder Minima will be shorter, the Maunder Minimum of the 17th century was about 65 years, the Maunder Minimum which we expect will be lasting not longer than 30-35 years. 

Of course things are not the same as they were in the 17th century – we have a lot more greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. And it will be interesting to see how the terrestrial and the solar influences play out.

This is promising research – a new insight into our sun with predictions as to its future behavior, yet Professor Zharkova relates than some climatologists resented her discovery.

Professor Valentina Zharkova:  

Some of them were welcoming and discussing. But some of them were quite — I would say — pushy. They were trying to actually silence us. Some of them contacted the Royal Astronomical Society, demanding, behind our back, that they withdraw our press release. The Royal Astronomical Society replied to them and CCed to us and said, ‘Look, this is the work by the scientists who we support, please discuss this with them.’ We had about 8 or 10 exchanges by email, when I tried to prove my point, and I’m saying, I’m willing to look at what you do, I’m willing to see how our results we produced and what the sun has explained to us. So how this is transformed into climate we do not produce; we can only assume it should be. So we’re happy to work with you, and add to your data our results. So don’t take the sunspots which you get, we can give you our curve. Work with our curve. So they didn’t want to.

Professor Zharkova’s work may have significantly improved our ability to forecast solar activity. If we do enter a new Maunder Minimum, then we are bound to discover new things about our sun and its influences on our climate.

3.5 2 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

689 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Rob
August 9, 2016 10:58 pm

Interesting to me that this Cooling correlates almost exactly with the Tidal Global Temperature Theory of Keeling!!

Stephen Parker
August 9, 2016 10:59 pm

Im sorry to say it folks, but you will just have to wait and see. And no, we’re not there yet!

August 9, 2016 11:03 pm

[Sigh] Doomed again. I knew it.

Pavel
August 10, 2016 12:37 am

According to my observations of current solar cycle. I want make prediction that cycle 24 will end in March 2017, so will have duration only 8 years. From March will begin prolonged solar minimum

halken
August 10, 2016 4:05 am

@lsvalgaard
Leif, I follow your argument that the sun does not cause temperature change due to the lack of the solar cycle in the temperature record. On the other hand, there is no a lot of doubt that LIA was real and both Dalton and Maunder minimums where accompanied by lower temperatures. How can we combine those two in a reasonable scientific explanation?

Reply to  halken
August 10, 2016 4:13 am

The LIA lasted much longer than a few decades in 1650-1700 and the Dalton minimum was not particularly cold:comment image
so it does not seem there is much to reconcile.

Bindidon
Reply to  halken
August 12, 2016 3:08 pm

I would rather say lower temperatures caused by an incredible sequence of volcano eruptions starting around 1250 AD, and influencing ocean climate feedback for centuries, were accompanied by Dalton and Maunder minima:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL050168/full

Reply to  Bindidon
August 12, 2016 3:10 pm

Volcanoes may have some influence, but, as usual, it is not so clear how much.

Bindidon
Reply to  Bindidon
August 13, 2016 3:47 am

lsvalgaard on August 12, 2016 at 3:10 pm
Mr Svalgaard / Leif, as you prefer, it is evident to me that your competence in this domain bypasses mine by far.
It was not my intention to put volcanoes on top of the LIA’s origin, but conversely to dispute Maunder’s and other sun minima to mainly be that origin as so often pretended.
What had impressed me in this paper by Miller & alii was their conscientious search for both
– a panoply of proxy traces, i.e. not only of volcano aerosols or tephra layers in ice cores, but also kill-dates, outlet glaciers, varves etc etc;
– ocean conditions able to sustain rather short-living effects of even huge volcanoes with VEI 6-7, over half a century or longer.
This is work completely differing from
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/42/16742.abstract
for example.

August 10, 2016 4:34 am

The data is very clear to any one that is objective that when the sun is in a prolonged minimum state the global temperature trend overall without exception is down.
When one adds ENSO/VOLCANIC ACTIIVTY to the mix the correlation is extremely strong.
The lack of understanding about the climate system is amazing.

August 10, 2016 4:37 am

http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm
The data which supports 100% what I said in the above post.
While I am at it this period of time in the climate is by no way unique.
Again look at the data.

Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
August 10, 2016 4:44 am

Your link states: “it appears that much warmer readings may be expected for Planet Earth, especially by the 2030s”, so that is supposed to support 100% what you said.

Bindidon
Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
August 12, 2016 3:01 pm

We all look at some data. Especially at that data you show:
http://www.longrangeweather.com/images/gtemps.jpg
Please have a look at the “Little Ice Age” where lots and lots of volcanic eruptions are mentioned, with however the very most important missing, which occured in 1257:
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/42/16742.abstract
Where is sun’s influence? What about carefully reading this paper?
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL050168/full

Reply to  Bindidon
August 15, 2016 5:33 am

There is much evidence of a solar /volcanic connection, which is part of why I think solar activity influences the climate. If you read what I have been saying for years you would have known that.

August 10, 2016 4:59 am

NO it is showing what the projected temp would be due to AGW by year 2038.

August 10, 2016 5:29 am

I AGREE WITH THIS 100% FROM JAVIER.
Javier
August 10, 2016 at 4:14 am
Paleoclimatologists are totally convinced. They see the climate cycles, they see the solar cycles, and they match. Almost every paper I read on past climate events at a time of low solar variability shows the authors assuming a solar variability cause. This is all observation based, a huge amount of observations. We might not have a mechanism, but the evidence is there. For example:
From: Magny, M. (1993). Solar influences on Holocene climatic changes illustrated by correlations between past lake-level fluctuations and the atmospheric 14 C record. Quaternary research, 40(1), 1-9.
And it is like this paper after paper. Judging by the number I’ve read (over a hundred) there’s probably thousands of papers on paleoclimatology assuming solar variability is behind a great deal of centennial to millennial climate variability. The amount of evidence is mind boggling, and essentially points to an atmospheric effect.

ferdberple
Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
August 10, 2016 3:12 pm

exactly. we have no idea what causes gravity, yet we can predict its effects. it could well be that people are looking in the wrong place to determine the solar connection to climate.
the temperature of a boiling pot of water doesn’t depend on how high or low you turn the heat. what it depends upon is the air pressure. who would think that air pressure determines the temperature of a pot of boiling water?

HenryP
August 10, 2016 9:52 am

must say
looks to me the lady did not really look at the known solar cycles as observed by those who discovered it
i.e.
Wolff 11 years
Hale and Hale-Nicholson 22-23 years
Gleissberg and Wolff Gleissberg 86-87 years
De Vries and De Vries -Suys 210 years

August 10, 2016 11:07 am

Is the paper or its abstract available for download somewhere?

Bindidon
Reply to  otropogo
August 12, 2016 1:15 pm

Google helps! Even if it is sometimes boring to pass along so many irrelevant links…
http://www.nature.com/articles/srep15689

HenryP
August 10, 2016 12:07 pm

david says
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/09/solar-physicist-sees-global-cooling-ahead/comment-page-1/#comment-2274495
henry says
mankind has developed and I think that the ‘ice age trap’
=increasing ice sheets encroaching toward civilization due to bad weather conditions deflecting more and more sunshine towards space..
can be avoided by sprinkling it with….
….carbon dust
like I always said
more carbon is good for you

Reply to  HenryP
August 11, 2016 12:00 pm

The return of the ice sheets is still a long ways off in mankind’s future. The worst case scenario in the near term would be changes to fall and spring weather patterns from a multi decade long cooling trend, where crop plantings or harvests would become threatened.

Resourceguy
August 10, 2016 12:28 pm

I’ll take two back to back cool summers in the northern hemisphere caused by lack of seasonal weakening of the jet stream even if it does not fit global climate modeling and the limitations of solar physics at this point.

Pavel
Reply to  Resourceguy
August 11, 2016 11:10 am

Please be more patient, only half a year to make it come true.I’m not a scientist, but I have a some background. Scientific authorities may have issue with such predictions , I open the window to make them free.

Reply to  Pavel
August 11, 2016 12:05 pm

What evidence makes you think that the minimum will occur next year?

Pavel
Reply to  Pavel
August 12, 2016 12:21 am

http://www.solen.info/solar/images/cycle24.png
R soutch has a constant rate of descent. R north for several months, it loses power, as if falling off a cliff

Resourceguy
August 11, 2016 7:21 am

WUWT needs a predictions reference tab that is categorized by topic, source, etc. Part of the lure of wacky predictions is the lack of reputation cost from any outcomes. Compiling the predictions would help balance the scale some.

HenryP
August 11, 2016 10:24 am

Javier says
Don’t forget that the fooling of oneself works both ways. You can fool yourself into believing that something that exists does not.
Henry says
now there is the shoe that fits exactly on Dr. No’s foot!!!

HenryP
August 12, 2016 12:17 pm

@Javier
http://www.nonlin-processes-geophys.net/17/585/2010/npg-17-585-2010.html
From my own results [daily T data from 54 weather stations for the past 40 years] I have been able to figure out that the 86-87 years Gleissberg cycle is like a sine wave and there is ample evidence to suggest that the bending points [dead end stops] are related to the position of the planets.
The solar polar field strengths confirm my results, namely last dead end stop was in 2014 and the one before was in 1971. [43] = 2 Hale cycles = 1/2 Gleissberg.
The change of sign [from negative to positive] was in 1950 [1971-1950= 21= 1 Hale cycle = 1/4 Gleissberg]Interpolating the data further back on the sine wave brings the dead end stop before 1971 to 1927 -1928.
According to my three data sets [Max. & Means & Min.] global cooling already started in 1994-1995, this is when the change of sign occurred.
in my sample, it appears that the amount of [global] cooling is in the range of -0.2K since 2000 and I expect a further -0.2 or -0.3 to come before the next change of sign [ca. 2036]
My wife still laughs at me on hearing these figures…..as indeed the delta T in the different rooms of our house are much more than that…
I am sharing my knowledge where we are with Gleissberg in the hope that somebody here can tell me where we are with De Vries – Suys? seeing that both are mentioned in the report that quoted at the beginning of this comment.

Reply to  HenryP
August 13, 2016 11:25 am

Henry, the de Vries cycle is shown in my figure above:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/09/solar-physicist-sees-global-cooling-ahead/comment-page-1/#comment-2274209
Last low was about 1885. Next low expected for ~2110.
However the intensity of the de Vries cycle is linked to its modulation by the 2400 year cycle. Next lows in the de Vries cycle should not be very noticeable as the low in the 2400 year cycle was 600 years ago.
You can check the de Vries cycle in this figure. Close circles are strong instances of the de Vries cycle, and open circles are weak instances. You can check that the effect on solar activity of the de Vries cycle in the open circles is almost none.
http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Figure-6.png
I expect quite stable temperatures going forward. Perhaps a little warming or perhaps a little cooling, but not much change.

HenryP
Reply to  Javier
August 13, 2016 12:59 pm

thx.
It looks to me then we are in the middle of De Vries, – a more or less neutral position – which explains my perfect or near perfect curves for the rate of change in T for the past 40 years, indicating that Gleissberg is the one to watch.
Observing the planets and the solar polar field strengths, we know for sure that the bending points on the GB sinewave were in 1971/2 and 2014/5 respectively.
this means that as far as SSN is concerned http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/sidc-ssn/from:1971/to:2014/offset:10/trend/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1927/to:2014/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1927/to:1971/trend/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1927/to:2014/trend
you can put a mirror in 2014 and see the future coming up in front of you
i.e. cycle 25 will be more or less equal in strength then cycle 23.
I hope you are right about no change in climate for the worse but somehow I doubt it. The so-called climate scientists are currently all fooling themselves with their models and fiddled records. Droughts are predicted by me for the great plains of America. Droughts were also prevalent in the same areas there in recorded history, that can only be explained by Gleissberg.
go south young man, go south!

Bindidon
Reply to  Javier
August 13, 2016 1:09 pm

Thanks Javier for this accurate info.

Reply to  Bindidon
August 13, 2016 1:22 pm

Bindidon August 13, 2016 at 1:09 pm
Thanks Javier for this accurate info.

Actually, it is not accurate. It is cyclomaniac extrapolation without any physical justification.

HenryP
Reply to  lsvalgaard
August 13, 2016 1:37 pm

well, before we had your AGW mania, cycle mania was all there was…..
http://cyclesresearchinstitute.org/pdf/cycles-astronomy/arnold_theory_order.pdf

Reply to  Javier
August 13, 2016 6:23 pm

Exactly, Henry. You nailed the Gleissberg with that figure. A repetition with perhaps a little reduced cycles 30-32 due to de Vries would be the most conservative prediction.
We are in a long Roman type warm period. Temperatures could go down because we are warmer than we should for this time in Milankovith cycles, but not too quickly and not too much. Also increased CO2 is like an insurance against cooling. It may not stop it but it sure will reduce it.

Reply to  Javier
August 15, 2016 5:39 am

Excellent info which shows the solar /climate tie in.

Reply to  Javier
August 15, 2016 6:03 am

Javier we are in much agreement and the only difference being your prediction that this period of time in solar activity will not be that extreme. You may be correct but that aside you agree that if my low average solar criteria were to be met a duration of time that the climate would indeed respond.
Criteria
solar wind 350 km/sec or less
ap index 5 or less
euv light 100 units or less
cosmic ray counts in excess of 6500
solar irradiance off by .15% or more
solar flux sub 90

Pavel
August 12, 2016 2:38 pm


history likes to repeat itself in a circle ,why can’t anyone see

Kamau
August 13, 2016 12:33 am

Do you think these upcoming sun spot solar min will lead to more wetter and snowy winters in Ca and in the west coast in general?

Pavel
Reply to  Kamau
August 13, 2016 3:17 pm

Long , long time ago brave people paid with blood for the truth. I have no idea, can I do that ?

HenryP
August 13, 2016 5:08 am

for argument sake let us assume we have -0.5K of cooling ahead of us. it would make sense to me to think that the
T differential between the equator poles becomes larger and hence you get [somewhat] more rainfall at the lower latitudes and less at the higher latitudes. Some places on earth get warmer [more sunshine] and some get cooler.
This thinking corresponds with the flooding of the nile which has been very well recorded over the ages. In a period of cooling [such as now] we have higher flooding of the nile. In contrast, the higher latitudes will get dryer during a cooling period.
If you want to know where we stand with regard to sun, more or less, just count back 87 years, i.e. 2016 -87= 1929.
Time to get out of the markets. The dust bowl drought 1932-1939 was one of the worst in history and I think we [the whole world] are now more reliant of the great plains of America for bread than ever before.
Go south, young man, go south….

Kamau
August 13, 2016 12:49 pm

As you are probably aware, the west coast has been in the midst of severe to extreme drought, especially Ca, for the past 5 winters in a row. Just curious, based on your knowledge of sun solar min(which has been associated with wetter/cooler conditions in the west), would this mean that Ca will likely to experience much more wetter conditions and more snowfall along with cooler conditions over the next 5-7 yrs extending over the next few decades? Hopefully, all of this spells good news. Please share your thoughts. Thank you.

HenryP
Reply to  Kamau
August 14, 2016 4:35 am


you mean sacrifices to the Gods for the drought to break?
the irony is that now that we know what is coming up ahead the so-called climate scientists are fiddling with their violin while Rome is burning –
interesting to note on that is that it was the Christians that were blamed for setting Rome alight…..

HenryP
Reply to  Kamau
August 14, 2016 4:53 am

@kamau
I answered this question https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/09/solar-physicist-sees-global-cooling-ahead/comment-page-1/#comment-2276891
you would do well to check the weather in your area as it was 87 years ago until now, for example like I did here:comment image
[in South Africa]
As you can see, in my area the weather works exactly like a pendulum clock. It is only the AGW proponents that deny that there is even a clock…..
I suspect it is because their jobs depend on it?

HenryP
Reply to  HenryP
August 14, 2016 5:01 am

go south, young man, go south
due south is more rainy
there are two continents that profit from global cooling.

co2islife
August 13, 2016 7:55 pm

Breitbart did a story on this one. The underhanded, unprofessional, back stabbing tactics of the warmists is truly despicable.

This explains why when Professor Zharkova first released her findings last year, various climate alarmists went behind her back to the Royal Astronomical Society to try to persuade them to withdraw the press release.
Some of them were welcoming and discussing. But some of them were quite — I would say — pushy. They were trying to actually silence us. Some of them contacted the Royal Astronomical Society, demanding, behind our back, that they withdraw our press release. The Royal Astronomical Society replied to them and CCed to us

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/12/winter-is-coming-warns-the-solar-physicist-the-alarmists-tried-to-silence/

Reply to  co2islife
August 13, 2016 9:15 pm

Regardless of the merit of the claim that the Sun is a major driver of climate, the Zharkova et al. theory does not match observed solar activity, so on that ground alone, the press release would be misleading.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
August 14, 2016 2:39 am

As most climate related press releases. It seems to be a tradition.

HenryP
August 14, 2016 6:07 am

Javier says
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/09/solar-physicist-sees-global-cooling-ahead/comment-page-1/#comment-2277255
henry says
actually, the linear approximation of SSN 1927-1971 and 1972-2014 is what wft allows you to do;
in actual fact the average SSN can be represented by a bi-nomial [ quadratic function] going up from 1927-1971 coming to the said dead end stop and going down 1971-2014 to said dead end stop.
You can also see the last half of the Gleissberg here:comment image?zoom=2
better make a physical copy of this graph before Dr. No makes it disappear…I note it is not being updated.
I refer to it as the “scissors’
Observe that you can draw a binomial (hyperbole) top to bottom and a parabola from bottom to top from 1971-2014 representing the average solar polar field strengths; acknowledge the variation – but agree with me that it [the average] looks like a quadratic?
In both instances there are the bending points right in the middle
1950 and 1995
respectively.
This is where the sign changes from warming to cooling.
GB warming was from 1950-1995
GB cooling is from 1995-2036
My results show there is no AGW
CO2 just follows warming and cooling, it does not cause it.
It would be foolish to think that we can depend on it for more warming in a cooling period.
How do I know? I have carefully analysed all daily data of 54 weather stations balanced by latitude and 70/30 % @sea/inland.
data are from 1976-2015
Maxima are going down, I had a nat. log. function here with Rsquare= 0.993
Minima are going down, I have a quadratic here with Rsquare=1.0000comment image
There simply is no room for any AGW….

co2islife
Reply to  HenryP
August 14, 2016 6:51 am

Maxima are going down, I had a nat. log. function here with Rsquare= 0.993
Minima are going down, I have a quadratic here with Rsquare=1.0000

The CO2 signature would be the spread between the Daytime High and the Nighttime Low narrowing. CO2 would slow the cooling at night by trapping outgoing IR. This would be best observed in the dry deserts, especially Antarctica which has no atmospheric CO2, and a black body temp close to 12µ or -80&Deg;C.

co2islife
Reply to  HenryP
August 14, 2016 6:56 am

I hate not being given 5 minutes to edit these posts. The previous post should read 15µ or -80°C. Those are the areas CO2 absorbs, and its contribution to AGW.
Also the block quote was coded wrong so the other post should read.

“This is virtually a constant, considering that the variation in TSI caused by the Earth’s orbital eccentricity is an order of magnitude larger.
Almost TWO orders of magnitude larger…”
You say that is though solar irradiation is the only variable. Variations in solar magnetic flux and solar wind, its associated impact on cosmic radiation, and cloud formation could be very significant.

Hello!!! We aren’t seeing the forest through the trees here. What is the AGW theory? Remember the basics and ask how this applies to atmospheric CO2? CO2 doesn’t trap incoming radiation. CO2 is transparent to incoming radiation. Record high ground daytime measurements demonstrates that more incoming radiation is reaching the earth. A hotter earth would be expected to result in a warmer atmosphere, but that has absolutely noting to do with atmospheric CO2. A constant TSI means little to the earth surface when there is a heavy cloud, soot or smoke layer. Just go outside on a very hot summer day and notice what happens when a cloud passes over or you walk under a tree. Unless less solar activity causes fewer clouds or other obsticals for radiation to reach the earth, it is almost a certainty that the earth will cool. The reason is very very very simple, CO2 only “traps” outgoing radiation. If you cool the earth, you simply have less energy to trap on the way out. Climate scientists seem to lack the understanding of this simple concept.

co2islife
August 14, 2016 6:42 am

“This is virtually a constant, considering that the variation in TSI caused by the Earth’s orbital eccentricity is an order of magnitude larger.
Almost TWO orders of magnitude larger…”
You say that is though solar irradiation is the only variable. Variations in solar magnetic flux and solar wind, its associated impact on cosmic radiation, and cloud formation could be very significant.

Hello!!! We aren’t seeing the forest through the trees here. What is the AGW theory? Remember the basics and ask how this applies to atmospheric CO2? CO2 doesn’t trap incoming radiation. CO2 is transparent to incoming radiation. Record high ground daytime measurements demonstrates that more incoming radiation is reaching the earth. A hotter earth would be expected to result in a warmer atmosphere, but that has absolutely noting to do with atmospheric CO2. A constant TSI means little to the earth surface when there is a heavy cloud, soot or smoke layer. Just go outside on a very hot summer day and notice what happens when a cloud passes over or you walk under a tree. Unless less solar activity causes fewer clouds or other obsticals for radiation to reach the earth, it is almost a certainty that the earth will cool. The reason is very very very simple, CO2 only “traps” outgoing radiation. If you cool the earth, you simply have less energy to trap on the way out. Climate scientists seem to lack the understanding of this simple concept.

HenryP
August 14, 2016 7:42 am

CO2 is life
says
CO2 is transparent to incoming radiation
Henry says
no it is not.
I am sure I explained this before?
The reason we can identify it on other planets is because of certain deflections in the Uv range?
Then there are deflections in the 1-2 um and 4-5 um range
remember earth emits in the 5-20um range and the sun emits 0-5 um
bring me the balance sheet of how much cooling and how much warming is caused by the CO2?
there is no AGW
as I explained before
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/09/solar-physicist-sees-global-cooling-ahead/comment-page-1/#comment-2277455

co2islife
Reply to  HenryP
August 14, 2016 9:03 am

CO2 is life
says
CO2 is transparent to incoming radiation
Henry says
no it is not.

As far as the AGW Theory, CO2 is transparent to visible light. The absorption band relevant to AGW is 13 to 18µ peak of 15µ. There are other absorption bands in the Near IR of 2µ 2.4µ and 4.7µ. Earth emits IR with a peak of 10µ.
http://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/images/Energy/GHGAbsoprtionSpectrum.jpg
http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/images/image7.gif

co2islife
Reply to  co2islife
August 14, 2016 9:16 am

CO2 is transparent to incoming radiation.

Ooops, my bad, I intended to say visible light. The intent was in reference to warming the earth. If CO2 isn’t transparent to a wavelength, then it won’t ever reach the earth in the first place. Once again, see the forest through the trees. CO2 contribution to the AGW is trapping IR between 13 and 18µ peak at 15µ. In the context of AGW, CO2 only traps outgoing radiation. Being opaque to incoming radiation is irreverent, other than its cooling effect on the earth surface. BTW, CO2 being opaque to those Near IR wavelengths would be expected to cool the earth, not warm it.

HenryP
August 14, 2016 8:02 am

@all
look
what I am saying
there is some [bad] climate change coming up ahead due to natural reasons
whatever people tell you: it is not your fault
perhaps they want you to believe that for some reason it is your fault but it is not…
that is exactly why I started my own investigations….
God has set restrictions on how cold and how warm it can get
and that is the very reason why you are all being alive today/….

Verified by MonsterInsights