The Sun drives climate, not CO2

Posted: February 6, 2014 by tallbloke in solar system dynamics

UKIP MEP Roger Helmer has been reading Die Kalte Sonne and takes warmist ignorance to task…

Roger Helmer MEP


In a recent blog I referred to Fritz Vahrenholt’s book “The Neglected Sun”.  I’ve been aware of this book for some time, and I’ve met the author a couple of times in Brussels.  It was first published in the original German as “Die Kalte Sonne” (The Cold Sun), but its English title emphasises its key premise: that the IPCC, in attributing climate change primarily to CO2, has ignored the Sun, which Vahrenholt argues has both a larger and a better-proven impact on climate.

Vahrenholt is remarkable, not so much for the book, as for his previous career, and his intellectual journey.  He started out as a socialist politician and passionate environmentalist.  Having studied Chemistry in Münster, he started his professional career at the federal environmental protection agency in Berlin, and the Ministry for Environment of Hesse. From 1984 till 1990 he had a leading role in environmental affairs…

View original post 847 more words

  1. ren says:

    Tallbloke I’m not a scientist, but it is obvious to me that the Sun’s magnetic field interacts with the Earth’s field especially in areas where focused cosmic rays. Above the Arctic Circle in the summer the most the ozone produced, which is modified by cosmic rays. This has a huge impact on the circulation of air in during the winter. If the cycles are still low this impact will increase, as is happening now.

  2. About Vahrenholt’s book, it is a very good book and I gave a contribution to it.

    On Roger Helmer site Tallbloke left an interesting comment:

    There I left a comment that I repeat here.

    I need to agree with Roger that “Not only do the warmists refuse to look at the solar evidence, they are busy trying to stop anyone else looking at it too.”

    Copernicus shutting down of the entire journal “Pattern Recognition in Physics” because published some papers arguing that the warming projected by the IPCC is exaggerated (a fact already argued in numerous papers present in the scientific literature) has been quite shameful. It will be remembered in the future because motivated by purely ideological and political convenience, which have nothing to do with science.

    James Annan and others were likely responsible for the action, as Annan states in his blog here:

    The strategy adopted by the warmists for manipulating the scientific debate can be clearly deduced from this climate-gate email:

    To know more about the sun-climate interaction you can look at my web-site where numerous papers can be downloaded.

    For a simple general introduction to the theory I am proposing read my PRP paper:

    Scafetta, N.: The complex planetary synchronization structure of the solar system, Pattern Recogn. Phys., 2, 1-19, doi:10.5194/prp-2-1-2014, 2014.

    Click to access prp-2-1-2014.pdf

    Here it is argued that the solar system is highly synchronized because characterized by a specific set of gravitational and electromagnetic harmonics that are then found in both solar and climate records. These harmonics regulate the natural variability of the climate that the current IPCC climate model do not capture. So, these harmonics can be used to produce more accurate projections for the 21st century, which imply half of the warming currently projected by the IPCC. This result was published in numerous paper of mine and is the main conclusion of Vahrenholt’s excellent book.

    Note that the above theory is not just an invention by me. It develops the ancient “music of the sphere” theory and the seminal works of Copernicus and Kepler and many others.

    The irony of this story is that Martin Rasmussen of Copernicus Publisher censured the entire PRP journal because of a special issue in pattern recognition whose first paper (my paper above) started with these sentences:

    In 1543 the De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres) was published. As opposed to Ptolemy’s geocentric model that had been widely accepted since antiquity, Copernicus (1543) proposed a heliocentric model for the solar system:…..”

    Other articles on our special issue in PRP are found here:

  3. ren says:

    Please see that ionizing radiation is strongest in the area where the pressure is lowest. Now this is the area between Canada and Greenland. It is the center of the polar vortex at an altitude of 15 km (70 hPa). Where ozone occurs _ highest over the Arctic Circle (highest temperature), the radiation is weaker, because it is absorbed by ozone. This means that ozone reacts with cosmic rays, not only from UV.

  4. tallbloke says:

    Nicola: Very well said, And I’ll take this opportunity to thank you for citing my own contribution regarding the “gravitational and electromagnetic harmonics that are then found in both solar and climate records.” The work I have been doing with Stuart (Oldbrew) is bearing fruit with showing that the interactions cannot be ‘gravity only’. Indeed that substantial energy transfers are occurring via the interplanetary magnetic field between Sun and planets, and that the resulting resonant harmonics are communicated through that same magnetic field back to the Sun, modulating it’s differential rotation and thereby it’s energy output variation.

    I believe our work is important, and will not be suppressed forever. Hopefully not for long at all.

  5. ren says:

    It is also worth check radiation monitor in the troposphere at an altitude of 5 km. It may be responsible for an increase in rain clouds.
    It is also worth check radiation monitor in the troposphere at an altitude of 5 km. It may be responsible for an increase in rain clouds.

  6. tallbloke says:

    The clmategate email Nicola linked is a beauty 🙂
    I love this bit:

    > >>> To my mind that is not as good
    > >>>as getting the offending editors removed and proper processes in
    > >>>place. Pressure or ultimatums to the publishers might work, or
    > >>>concerted lobbying by other co-editors or leading authors. (c) A
    > >>>journalistic expose of the unscientific practices might work and
    > >>>embarass the sceptics/industry lobbies (if they are capable of
    > >>>being embarassed) e.g., through a reliable lead reporter for
    > >>>Science or Nature. Offending editors could be labelled as “rogue
    > >>>editors”, in line with current international practice? Or is that
    > >>>defamatory?

  7. Yes Roger,

    both “gravitational and electromagnetic” forcings are involved and you surely gave an important contribution to this research.

    Up to now it is important to denounce the strategy used by the warminsts, who are those who deny the existence of an important natural climatic variability component, to suppress scientific inquiry.

    Their strategy for manipulating the scientific debate can be clearly deduced from this climate-gate email:

    Here you read things like:

    > 3. I see several possible courses of action that would be useful.
    > (a) Prepare a background briefing document for wide private
    > circulation, which refutes the claims and lists competent
    >authorities who might be consulted for advice on this issue. (b)
    > Ensure that such misleading papers do not continue to appear in the
    > offending journals by getting proper scientific standards applied
    > to refereeing and editing. Whether that is done publicly or
    > privately may not matter so much, as long as it happens. It could
    > be through boycotting the journals, but that might leave them even
    > freer to promulgate misinformation. To my mind that is not as good
    > as getting the offending editors removed and proper processes in
    > place. Pressure or ultimatums to the publishers might work, or
    > concerted lobbying by other co-editors or leading authors. (c) A
    > journalistic expose of the unscientific practices might work and
    > embarass the sceptics/industry lobbies (if they are capable of
    > being embarassed) e.g., through a reliable lead reporter for
    > Science or Nature. Offending editors could be labelled as “rogue
    > editors”, in line with current international practice? Or is that
    > defamatory? (d) Legal action might be useful for authors who
    > consider themselves libelled, and there could be financial support
    > for such actions (Jim Salinger might have contacts here). However,
    > we would need to be very careful to be moderate and reasonable in
    > our reponses to avoid counter legal actions.

    Note the above “To my mind that is not as good as getting the offending editors removed and proper processes in place. Pressure or ultimatums to the publishers might work, or concerted lobbying by other co-editors or leading authors.”

    This is exactly what James Annan and others likely did, as Annan himself states in his blog here:

    where you read:

    “The problems at the journal were was first brought to my attention by ThingsBreak just last night, I emailed various people to express my concerns and the journal (which was already under close scrutiny by the publisher) was closed down within 24h. ”

    Annan, Rasmussen and others will be remembered for time long in history!.

  8. tallbloke says:

    Nicola: It is my birthday in a few days time and you have given me an early present.

    Thank you. 🙂

  9. michael hart says:

    “I realise the issues with lobbying groups and I’m sure this has been discussed at the IPCC planning meeting in Marrakesh this week.”

    That sentence made me chuckle.

  10. ren says:

    NAIRAS is a physics-based model that maximizes the use of real-time input data. GCR
    are transported from outside the heliosphere to 1 AU using real-time measurements of
    ground-based neutron monitor count rates. The SEP particle spectra are determined in-situ
    using a combination of NOAA/GOES and NASA/ACE ion flux measurements. Both sources
    of cosmic rays, galactic and solar, are transported through Earth’s magnetosphere using a
    semi-physics-based geomagnetic shielding model. The geomagnetic shielding model utilizes
    real-time NASA/ACE solar wind and IMF measurements. The cosmic rays are transported
    from the magnetosphere through the neutral atmosphere using the NASA LaRC’s HZETRN
    deterministic transport code. The real-time, global atmospheric mass density distribution
    is obtained from the NOAA Global Forecasting System. Global and flight path radiation
    exposure visualization and decision data products have been developed, which are available
    at the NAIRAS website.
    Future research will focus on new science questions that emerged in the the development
    NAIRAS prototype operational model (Mertens et al., 2010c). The science questions identified
    by Mertens et al. (2010c) must be addressed in order to obtain a more reliable and robust
    operational model of atmospheric radiation exposure. Addressing these science questions
    require improvements in both space weather modeling and observations.
    The Automated Radiation Measurements for Aviation Safety (ARMAS) is a new initiative
    to address the deficiencies in observations needed to improve the reliability and robustness
    of operational aircraft radiation exposure assessment. The ultimate goal of the ARMAS
    initiative is to integrate onboard radiation instruments into a global fleet of aircraft so that
    the radiation measurements can be downlinked in real-time and assimilated into the NAIRAS
    predictions of radiation exposure. A subsidiary goal of ARMAS is to provide a testbed
    to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of new generations of smaller, cheaper hardware
    technologies in measuring the atmospheric ionizing radiation field. The ARMAS initiative
    enables the NAIRAS model to adopt the successful meteorological paradigm for reliable
    and robust weather forecast, which is physics-based models combined with real-time data
    assimilation of meteorological fields. The NAIRAS/ARMAS approach is a space weather
    version of terrestrial weather forecasts. These efforts will occupy the NAIRAS team for the
    next decade or more.
    Other research topics unrelated to biological risk from cosmic rays will also be addressed.
    Effort will also be directed toward predicting the risk that cosmic rays may pose to the
    operation of microelectronics instrumentation onboard aircraft, and the potential influence
    cosmic rays may have on the chemistry and climate of planetary atmospheres.

  11. tallbloke says:

    Ren, thanks for this and your other observations. We will do a new discussion on GCR’s soon I promise.

  12. Roger, it may be interesting to write some article reveling and detailing comments on the climate-gate email:

    on James Annan action, and on their possible involvement with the Copernicus-censorship-affair.

    Jonova and Pierre may also contribute with their own articles and comments and should be invited to do so with their own comments. It would be nice to see some blog discussions on these censorship lobby strategies.

  13. tallbloke says:

    Good plan Nicola. Time to go on the offensive against these bully boys.

  14. tchannon says:

    Gimme a pair of dates, a time range.
    This is for a trial video of Semi’s lastest Solar sunspot and something you have not seen yet, 3 auxiliary items.

    Candidate years are 1874 through 2012 inclusive.

    Suggest 50,000 frames.

    All being well I’ll pop up a new post.

    The book. I see Rog was keeping an eye on the promised English version too. There are posts mentioning the contents based on the German text, not that I can recall where exactly.
    Pub in English is good news, cheers.

  15. oldbrew says:

    Wikipedia claims: ‘electromagnetism is not relevant to astronomical objects, since such bodies have an equal number of protons and electrons that cancel out (i.e., a net electric charge of zero).’

    Science won’t get very far if it goes along with that kind of simplistic approach.

  16. ren says:

    I think that if the GCR is used to study activity in the past, it can also be used to study the impact of the activity on the climate now. Winter is the best time.
    We already have the tools.

  17. p.g.sharrow says:

    @oldbrew; My son, the computer geek, gets very upset if I disparage Wikipedia as a source for all things. 😆
    My research leads me to believe that deep space has a decided charge (negative) and matter, celestial bodies, a decided lack of charge (or positive). This results in the linear acceleration, Gravity, and effects of mass/inertia. Gravity actually works in the right direction! from strong toward weak energy concentration. We shall see if my experiment demonstrates me to be a crazy old man or a visionary eccentric. 😉 pg

  18. ren says:

    This is the current temperature in the U.S..




    At the present time, as we have seen, changes in the sun appear to he coincident with climatic and telluric changes in the earth. So far as we can judge, the climatic changes, though on a very small scale, seem to be of the same nature as the great climatic changes of the various glacial periods of earlier geological times. The telluric changes, also on a very small scale, are apparently of the same nature as the great movements of the past by which mountains have been formed and continents uplifted. It is notable that according to the general opinion of geologists the three best known and most severe climatic changes through which the earth has passed have been closely associated with profound modifications of the earth’s crust. The glacial period which occurred just before the Cambrian period, far back near the beginning of legible geological records, was followed by a great change in the distribution of land and sea. Again after the prolonged period of comparative stability known as the Paleozoic era there ensued the severe Permian glaciation composed of many glacial epochs separated by warm epochs. At approximately the same time, or shortly afterward, there was a great uplifting of the continents and the formation of mountain ranges such as the Appalachians. Finally the last great glacial period, that of the Pleistocene and Pliocene was also a time of great mountain-building, when the Alps, the Sierra Nevadas, and the Himalayas received a marked uplift giving them their present altitude.
    It thus appears that in geologic history the greatest known climatic changes have been closely associated with remarkable telluric changes. It appears that at present climatic and telluric changes on a small scale are coincident with or follow closely upon changes in the sun. The question at once arises whether there may not have been a similar
    coincidence in the past. No attempt can be made to answer the question as yet, but it opens a most fascinating field of speculation and of investigation. If the activities of the earth and of the sun are related to one another in any such manner as is suggested above, the study of the one will add vastly to our knowledge of the other. An examination of solar changes, on the one hand, may enable us to foretell something of what is about to occur upon the earth. A careful reading of the geological history of the earth, on the other hand, may disclose the history of the sun for millions of years past, and may shed light upon the fascinating problem of the thermal history and ultimate destiny of the body which, as knowledge increases, appears more and more to be the arbiter of terrestrial life.

  20. DirkH says:

    oldbrew says:
    February 6, 2014 at 7:08 pm
    “Science won’t get very far if it goes along with that kind of simplistic approach.”

    It looks much worse…
    and for the Einsteinian way of explaining it…

  21. NikFromNYC says:

    Lots of gears, merely.

  22. Brian H says:

    Thanks for the lucid ref on LR.

    Edit: TB, here and on Hellmer’s blog, you use “De Kalte Sonne”. Stick with “Die”, pls.

  23. ren says:

    It is good that there is a lot of tools, because the goal is one – to demonstrate the impact of solar activity on the climate, for the good of the people.

  24. tallbloke says:

    Thanks Brian:
    That’s Helmer, not Hellmer by the way. 🙂 🙂

  25. Susan Fraser says:
    very interesting. I wondered what was really behind NIWA sacking Jim Salinger

    Paul Homewood found this NIWA graph of a much warmer Holocene era in NZ than present, author Jim Salinger

  26. Jaime Jessop says:

    The choice is clear and simple: Do you believe the warmists who say that that CO2 is causing more extreme weather by affecting the jet streams in some mysterious way, even though the signature of CO2 AGW – global surface temperature rises – has been static for 17 years? Or do you believe the solar and planetary theorists who maintain – increasingly more convincingly – that our Sun drives the behaviour of the sub-tropical and mid-latitudinal jet streams, affecting weather patterns worldwide and, ultimately, the behaviour of our climate, both regionally and globally. No-brainer really . . . . . which might explain why so many still tend to the former explanation . . . .

  27. tallbloke says:

    Thanks for that Jaime. The Sun and the Moon too. Ian Wilson, Richard Holle, Harald Yndestad and others have found strong evidence of annual to decadal patterns related to the motion of the nearest celestial body to Earth, which mysteriously appears to be the same diameter as the Sun, as viewed from here. A mystery to the gravity-only theorists anyway.

  28. tchannon says:

    Pretty good evidence is a paper certain individuals do not like one bit, eg. Santer because it is by outside statisticians who of course know nothing about the one-true-cause, only have information.

    Solar and temperature share characteristic, no AGW factor shares the same group.

  29. Chaeremon says:

    tallbloke wrote: … strong evidence of annual to decadal patterns related to the motion of the nearest celestial body to Earth …

    As a reminder (caution: object invisible in ivory towers, armchairs and at climate conferences).

  30. tallbloke says:

    Tim C: “Pretty good evidence is a paper certain individuals do not like one bit”

    We look ridiculous in these suspenders Tim, so just tell us which paper you have in mind.

  31. A C Osborn says:

    The Sun drives it but the Sun & Moon combine to also modify it, I posted this on Suggestions a few days ago.
    A C Osborn says:
    February 5, 2014 at 12:28 pm
    More interesting work from Clive Best that fits in with Cyclic Science. Analysing the Tidal Movements.

    It coincided with this on the HockeySchtick

  32. tchannon says:

    Not a new paper (2012). Connecting the two is getting into other people’s cat fights.

  33. ren says:

    The starting point is the solar cycle, which no one, apart from the 100 year olds do not remember.
    So important are the current observations.

  34. Bob Weber says:

    Ren – I appreciate your persistence – and it would be great if your regular one-line posts and links would come with a qualitative explanation of what YOU mean!!! I want to encourage you to keep at it – you never know when your point and link can be crucially helpful to someone else like me!

    Your link,, was the first time I’ve heard of this paper, titled, “Atmospheric Ionizing Radiation from Galactic and Solar Cosmic Rays”.

    Without galactic and solar cosmic rays – protons and electrons mostly, there is no space weather or electric weather, meaning Earth weather would be vastly different – starting with cloud cover.

    Late last year I was getting into it with everyone’s favorite solar scientist on a WUWT blog over electric currents in the solar wind and electric weather. As a result of that blogging, I was invited by the director of the Thunderbolts group to speak about “The Electric Weather Effect” at their March conference, where I will present evidence for the direct electromagnetic, electric, and magnetic causes of solar activity and earth weather, including global warming and extreme weather events, and will participate on a global warming panel discussion.

    I’m announcing this today for the benefit of Tallbloke’s Talkshop. Since 2007, I’ve learned a lot from all the contributors here, and wish to convey a deep personal sense of awe and wonder in the Universe partly gleaned from the variety and depth of articles Roger has posted here over the years. There could be no better place than the Talkshop for the like-minded in these matters.

    There have been so many great people featured on this site that I can hardly think of myself as on par with them. For instance, who here wouldn’t love to hear Roger, Nicola, Hans, and the others from PRP, or Tim Cullen, or Paul Vaughn, or so many other great Talkshop contributors speak at an Electric Universe conference, or at a Planetary Theory conference?

    As a true believer that THE SUN DRIVES CLIMATE NOT CO2, my schtick is simple and direct: “It’s photons, protons, and electrons that deliver the power that drives the weather and climate, not CO2.”

    For a great primer video on solar activity and weather/climate, see an oldie but goodie, a real gem, a 48 minute 1977 BBC documentary called “The Sunspot Mystery”, at

  35. tallbloke says:

    Bob W: Good stuff. I’ m trying to get ren to write a longer piece in his native Polish for translation. Glad you’ve enjoyed our work here. Much more on planetary motion and waether coming up.

  36. oldbrew says:

    @ Bob Weber

    Have you seen this report commissioned by the US Dept. of Homeland Security?

    ‘Impacts of Severe Space Weather on the Electric Grid’

    Click to access spaceweather.pdf

    Haven’t read it all (100+ pages) but the part about geomagnetically induced currents (GICs) looks interesting e.g. ‘GIC harmonics’:

    ‘Using relays set to trip before grid equipment is seriously damaged while avoiding being tripped inappropriately by GIC harmonics’. The Finns are experts on this it seems, because they need to be.

    Also it seems the US has many different designs of transformer, so major solar-induced power damage could cause massive problems, as transformers are usually built to order making them difficult or impossible to replace in short timescales.

  37. ren says:

    Tallbloke seems to me that in the event of changes in solar activity seemingly small changes in parameters can lead to large changes in stratospherze.
    Ozone is an unstable gas that can easily be smashed by ionizing radiation. Then you heat energy. This is just an example.
    Look at this:

  38. ren says:

    I have difficulties with the translation of scientific works. Maybe, like Bob Weber will find new information. Regards Bob.