1967 : National Geographic – Solar Cycles Control Climate

Posted on October 24, 2015 by Tony Heller

In 1967 National Geographic predicted global cooling for 45 years, and said glacial movements and climate are driven by solar cycles.

2015-10-24-14-04-57

2015-10-24-13-45-21

2015-10-24-14-04-082015-10-24-14-04-27

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to 1967 : National Geographic – Solar Cycles Control Climate

  1. Foryourtable LLC (@Foryourtable) says:
    October 24, 2015 at 6:44 pm

    Someone must have mentioned the awkward truth the government can’t tax sunspots.

    Reply
  2. omanuel says:
    October 24, 2015 at 7:53 pm

    TODAY IS THE UN’S SEVENTH BIRTHDAY !

    For seventy years, after the UN was established on 24 Oct 1945, governments have paid greedy scientists worldwide to obscure the beautiful, bountiful, benevolent and simple, but well-functioning, Universe (Truth, Reality and God) revealed by measurements [1] and direct personal observations [2] from the public.

    That is the cause of today’s social unrest, mistrust of government, chaos and violence.

    Limits on the worldwide web of deception are a topic of much discussion [3], but no personal comprehension.

    Reply
  3. KuhnKat says:
    October 24, 2015 at 10:06 pm

    Without Hansen et. al. fiddling the temp records, would they be on the road to being proven correct??

    Reply
  4. markstoval says:
    October 24, 2015 at 10:36 pm

    When I was at university in the early 70s, we realized that we must be towards the end of the Holocene interglacial. It is the end of the interglacial period that we need to fear and to prepare for, not some delusion that CO2 can warm the surface in any way.

    Reply
  5. Henry P says:
    October 25, 2015 at 4:09 pm

    https://i1.wp.com/oi60.tinypic.com/2d7ja79.jpg

    it becomes easier if you know where we are in the solar cycle…..

    Reply
  7. rah says:
    October 25, 2015 at 4:59 pm

    http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/synoptic/sunspots_earth/mdi_sunspots.jpg

    “INFO FROM SIDC – RWC BELGIUM 2015 Oct 25 12:30UTC

    Solar activity was low with two lower C-class flares. The source region was
    NOAA active region (AR) 2434, which is close to the west limb. NOAA AR 2436
    became slightly more complex in its trailing part, while the other regions
    were stable. Flares at the C-level are expected. No Earth-directed CMEs
    were observed.

    A shock was observed in the solar wind around 18:30 UT on October 24. Solar
    wind speed, density and temperature made a jump. The magnitude of the
    Interplanetary Magnetic Field (IMF) has reached a magnitude of 14 nT with a
    mainly positive Bz
    component varying from -9 to 10 nT. Solar wind speed reached 540 km/s. The
    shock is probably related to the October 22 CME. Geomagnetic conditions are
    quiet (K<3) to unsettled (K=3), which is mainly expected to continue."

    IOW it's damned quiet there right now and is expected to be so for some time to come.

    Reply
    • Henry P says:
      October 25, 2015 at 5:19 pm

      “quiet” was perhaps a wrong choice of words

      the truth is that low sunspots can be easily correlated with lower solar polar magnetic field strengths, meaning that generally speaking relatively more of the most energetic particles are able to escape from the sun.
      [if you understand a bit of nuclear fusion]

      Reply
      • rah says:
        October 25, 2015 at 6:00 pm

        Well gee, I guess you had better inform the space weather people of that fact because I have seen them use the term “quiet” regularly over the years for describing low solar geomagnetic storm activity or a forecast for the same quite frequently! Such as this “END OF ALL QUIET ALERT” from the SIDC. http://sidc.oma.be/products/quieta/

        Besides it seems to me the key factor here concerning we humans on earth and our weather and climate is the strength of magnetosphere of our planet and the suns at a given time.
        The weaker the earths magnetosphere the more solar energy in various forms that reach and in some cases penetrate to the atmosphere. The weaker the suns magnetosphere the more cosmic rays that can reach the earths magnetosphere and penetrate. So it seems to be the bottom line for we on the surface of the earth is not how much is being emitted but how much is penetrating our magnetosphere and atmosphere. Of course our satellites and the astronauts on the ISS are in a more vulnerable situation.

        Reply
  8. Henry P says:
    October 25, 2015 at 6:58 pm

    rah says
    Well gee, I guess you had better inform the space weather people of that fact because I have seen them use the term “quiet” regularly over the years for describing low solar geomagnetic storm activity or a forecast for the same quite frequently! Such as this “END OF ALL QUIET ALERT” from the SIDC. http://sidc.oma.be/products/quieta/

    to quote from the link given
    The SIDC – RWC Belgium expects solar or geomagnetic activity to
    increase. This may end quiet Space Weather conditions.

    henry says
    I don’t see where what I say is in contradiction?

    i.e.
    less solar activity = less solar polar magnetic field strengths = more solar particles of <0.1 um

    but true

    there are not too many of us who can read the solar graphs right

    The sun may now be at both its brightest and hottest point in 87 or 88 years but that does not mean [more] warming for mother earth. It means cooling, because of earth's defense system – i.e. the atmosphere…..

    Reply
  9. harleyrider1978 says:
    October 25, 2015 at 11:07 pm

    Professor Woodcock told the Yorkshire Evening Post:.

    “The term ‘climate change’ is meaningless. The Earth’s climate has been changing since time immemorial, that is since the Earth was formed 1,000 million years ago. The theory of ‘man-made climate change’ is an unsubstantiated hypothesis [about] our climate [which says it] has been adversely affected by the burning of fossil fuels in the last 100 years, causing the average temperature on the earth’s surface to increase very slightly but with disastrous environmental consequences.

    “The theory is that the CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuel is the ‘greenhouse gas’ causes ‘global warming’ – in fact, water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas and there is 20 time more of it in our atmosphere (around one per cent of the atmosphere) whereas CO2 is only 0.04 per cent.

    “There is no reproducible scientific evidence CO2 has significantly increased in the last 100 years.”

    He also said:

    “Even the term ‘global warming’ does not mean anything unless you give it a time scale. The temperature of the earth has been going up and down for millions of years, if there are extremes, it’s nothing to do with carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it’s not permanent and it’s not caused by us. Global warming is nonsense.”

    Professor Woodcock dismissed evidence for global warming, such as the floods that deluged large parts of Britain this winter, as “anecdotal” and therefore meaningless in science.

    “Events can happen with frequencies on all time scales in the physics of a chaotic system such as the weather. Any point on lowland can flood up to a certain level on all time scales from one month to millions of years and it’s completely unpredictable beyond around five days.”

    Also, the only reason we regularly hear that we have had the most extreme weather “since records began” is that records only began about 100 years ago.

    “The reason records seem to be being frequently broken is simply because we only started keeping them about 100 years ago. There will always be some record broken somewhere when we have another natural fluctuation in weather.

    “It’s absolutely stupid to blame floods on climate change, as I read the Prime Minister did recently. I don’t blame the politicians in this case, however, I blame his so-called scientific advisors.”

    When asked how can say this when most of the world’s scientists, political leaders and people in general are committed to the theory of global warming, Prof Woodcock answered bluntly:

    “This is not the way science works. If you tell me that you have a theory there is a teapot in orbit between the earth and the moon, it’s not up to me to prove it does not exist, it’s up to you to provide the reproducible scientific evidence for your theory.

    “Such evidence for the man-made climate change theory has not been forthcoming.”

    This lack of evidence has not stopped a whole green industry building up, however. At the behest of that industry, governments have been passing ever more regulations that make life more difficult and expensive.

    “…the damage to our economy the climate change lobby is now costing us is infinitely more destructive to the livelihoods of our grand-children. Indeed, we grand-parents are finding it increasingly expensive just to keep warm as a consequence of the idiotic decisions our politicians have taken in recent years about the green production of electricity.”

    Professor Woodcock is the latest scientist to come out against the theory of man-made global warming. James Lovelock, once described as a “green guru”, earlier this month said that climate scientists “just guess”, and that no one really knows what’s happening.

    Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, also said that she was “duped into supporting the IPCC” and added “If the IPCC is dogma, then count me in as a heretic

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *