Predictions for The Grand Solar Minimum
We are entering a Grand Solar Minimum where the number of solar flares is greatly reduced for an extended period of time. This provides an opportunity to study the relationship between the weather on Earth and the sun as any changes will become more evident as conditions exceed the normal variations we experience. I will do a foolish thing and make long term predictions on the coming weather.
Prediction 1:
IT WILL GET COLD.
This may seem to be a no brainer since history has shown that as the number of solar flares decreases the temperature on the Earth also decreases but there are those who believe that there is no relationship between the two. The solar flares are the source of the sun’s x-ray and ultraviolet light emissions so the radiation of visible light doesn’t change significantly during the sun spot cycle.
There are people who believe that since the nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere do not absorb visible light, they do not receive radiated energy from the sun and are heated by the Earth’s surface. This despite the laws of thermodynamics saying that all objects absorb radiated energy and all objects above absolute zero will radiate energy.
The wavelengths of radiated energy absorb by the oxygen and nitrogen molecules in the atmosphere are the shorter ultraviolet wavelengths that are converted into kinetic energy and radiate as infrared radiation. The atmosphere is being heated by the ultraviolet light emitted by the sun and it in turn is adding heat to the Earth’s surface. This source of heat will be greatly reduced during the solar minimum and I am willing to go out on a limb and predict the Earth will become colder during the solar minimum.
Prediction 2:
THE OZONE “HOLE” WILL GROW IN SIZE AND SEVERITY BUT THE AMOUNT OF ULTRAVIOLET LIGHT REACHING THE EARTH’S SURFACE WILL DECREASE.
There are those who believe the depletion of ozone in the upper atmosphere is a result of man’s activity and the reduction of ozone will have catastrophic consequence for life on Earth as ultraviolet radiation increases. They ignore the fact that before plants evolved there was no oxygen molecules or ozone in the atmosphere and yet life developed.
When oxygen and nitrogen molecules absorb ultraviolet light it causes the atoms to vibrate. When enough energy (450,000 joules/mole for O2) is absorbed the molecules splits into atoms. In the upper atmosphere this allows an oxygen atom to combine with a nitrogen molecule to form nitrous oxide molecules.
In the stratosphere where the energy from the sun is diminished and the density of molecules increases the free oxygen atom combines with an oxygen molecule to form ozone. It is the oxygen molecule that is absorbing the ultraviolet light that produces ozone. With the decrease in ultraviolet light from fewer flares there will be less ozone produced and more oxygen molecules to absorb that light. This will cause an increase in the ozone “hole” and a decrease in ultraviolet light reaching the surface of the Earth.
Prediction 3:
THE ALTITUDE WHERE CLOUDS FORM WILL INCREASE.
This seems counter intuitive. If cloud form when water vapor condenses into water droplets a cooling of the atmosphere would lead to the clouds forming at a lower altitude. This belief ignores the fact that clouds currently form at an altitude of ten kilometers when the temperature at five kilometers is almost as cold and yet no clouds form there.
Water as a gas does not exist below the boiling point of water (James McGinn). The molecules in water have different kinetic energy and the temperature is said to be the median kinetic energy of the bell curve of the water molecule’s energy. When the water temperature is at boiling (373 k) another 540 calories/gram must be added to convert the liquid water to a gas.
This means the effective temperature where water converts to a gas at the high end of the bell curve is 913 k. The bell curve dictates the corresponding temperature at the low end needs to be -127 k. There is no negative temperature absolute. The disparity between the temperature and the energy needed to convert the water to a gas is too great to occur with the tightly packed molecules of liquid water.
Water evaporates as micro droplets of liquid water not a gas, which explains its ability to absorb a large amount of infrared energy. The micron droplets form because water is a liquid crystal that forms when infrared energy splits water molecules into hydroxyl and hydrogen ions and the hydroxyl ions combine with other water molecules to form a crystalline shell. (See Dr. Gerald Pollack’s experiments in his book The Fourth Phase of Water.)
Liquid crystals have two melting points with water’s first melting point being at 0 C and the second being somewhere between 100 C and the 540 calories/gram needed to convert it to steam. As the water crystals absorb infrared energy the negative charge increases causing the crystal to rise in the atmosphere. When the crystal reaches an altitude where the crystal melts it releases both the stored kinetic energy and the energy stored as electrical energy converting to a liquid and forming clouds.
As the ultraviolet light heating the atmosphere decreases the altitude at which the second melt point of the water crystals occurs to form clouds will increase.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Brian James
| #
Sep 16, 2020 Cycle 25, Mass Animal Deaths, Diamond Planet | S0 News
Daily Sun, Earth and Science News
https://youtu.be/JOq485LofE4
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Hi Herb,
Excellent reasoning.
It is a shame that there is NO money in it!
Michael (Logician).
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Herb,
I think you are right in anticipating a cooling period coming in the near future. Another cooling period in not news, but in the near future is. The big question is what are the consequences of a cooling period, which raises the question of how much cooling? It seems earth core activity is an important component in that it causes the sea temperature to change. A rising sea temperature can be expected to increase atmospheric CO2 as well as average humidity, which is topical, and will have some offsetting effects on the solar minimum cooling. The big question is how much preparation can we make ahead of a global cooling event, and what form should that preparation take?
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Robert,
As the heating of the Earth’s surface by the atmosphere decreases the equilibrium point between solar heat and geothermal heat will rise in the Earth’s crust. However, I do not believe that geothermal will become the primary energy source for the water and it will still be absorbing most of its energy from the visible light coming from the sun. The sea will cool and CO2 (which contributes nothing to heating the Earth) will become more soluble in the water and atmospheric levels of the gas will decrease.
Water will continue to absorb infrared energy and carry that energy to the stratosphere but as the level of IR decreases less water will evaporate. The humidity is a measurement of the water in the atmosphere at a given temperature not a measurement of the amount of water in the air so I don’t think it provides relevant data.
Since the solar minimum will be a decrease heat, not sunlight, the need will be for increased energy as more food production will need to move indoors. We will need to increase our ability to produce reliable, cheap energy especially as the expensive, unreliable wind and solar energy we are now wasting money on become utterly useless. The current hoax is making us waste resources and preventing us from preparing for the imminent real threat
Herb
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Herb,
“the equilibrium point between solar heat and geothermal heat will rise in the Earth’s crust.”
71% of the earth’s surface is sea water, so heat from the sea is a more rapid driver of atmospherics than geothermal variations on the land. The ARGO buoy data now shows clear response between sub marine tectonic activity and surface heating. Unfortunately, higher atmospheric moisture also means more “high energy” ice. This can lead to a bigger albedo effect, thereby increasing the cooling trend. All very dynamic, but well worth some detailed study by a group who can keep their political views out of the research.
“The current hoax is making us waste resources and preventing us from preparing for the imminent real threat.” Amen to that.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Robert,
The moon receives the same level of solar energy as the Earth. Its surface exposed to the sun has a temperature of 250 F while the Earth’s surface temperature is 50 F. The energy missing from the Earth’s surface is contained in the gases and water in the atmosphere. The gases absorb the UV and convert it to IR which is absorbed by atmospheric water. The Earth has an insulating layer of near boiling water that is preventing the escape of geothermal energy which has cooled the interior of the moon. It is the ability of water to transport heat back towards its source and radiate that heat into space that makes the Earth habitable.
The water in the atmosphere is a crystal structure but not a cold “ice” and as a clear crystal with a clear liquid core the nano droplets do not scatter light in the same manner as larger water droplets.
I would expect water to transmit UV but with visible light, partially reflect from a convex surface, absorb, have refraction, again partially reflect (but from a concave surface) and transmit then repeat the process until the incoming light is scattered in all directions, not just back into space. I do not know how much the albedo effect results in actual energy loss from visible light but I don’t think it affects the energy from UV. It certainly warrants more study to determine the effect of clouds on energy distribution in the Earth system including the atmosphere above the clouds.
Herb
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Herb,
Rising sea temperature is expected to produce a climate effect as more moisture enters the atmosphere. This causes additional cloud cover to form, which leads to land cooling, and additional ‘high energy’ ice formation on Earth’s ice fields. Increased ice cover leads to higher albedo resulting in more sun light reflected back into space. ‘Low energy’ ice forms at sea level when sea surface temperature declines sufficiently.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Robert,
I almost missed your comment with the increasing comments at PSI.
To get a significant change in vapor pressure of the Earth’s bodies of water you must have a large change in the water’s temperature. Considering the large volume of water on the Earth I don’t see a significant increase in atmospheric moisture and increase in clouds.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Robert and Herb,
You both make statements in your comments which you do not supported with any actually measured data.
https://raws.dri.edu/
Go to this link for these two MN locations, Sherburne and Little Falls. Inspect the reported data at each location for the five days (23,24, 25, 26, 27) for these days in ithe months Dec 2019 and Mar., June, Sept. 2020.
After doing this, please report back to PSI Readers what you judge the value of these measurements might be..
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Made another of my common mistakes. Sopt. 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 2020 have not occurred yet. So make these five days those of Sept 2019.
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Herb,
I note your comment “The sea will cool and CO2 (which contributes nothing to heating the Earth) will become more soluble in the water and atmospheric levels of the gas will decrease,” with which I agree. However, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is a very good proxy for average sea surface temperature, and in that role very useful. (See EM professor Lance Endersbee’ formula). This means the cooling of the sea is still a long way off.
And:
“To get a significant change in vapor pressure of the Earth’s bodies of water you must have a large change in the water’s temperature. Considering the large volume of water on the Earth I don’t see a significant increase in atmospheric moisture and increase in clouds.” Check out the NOAA record at https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/2013-state-climate-humidity which compares the average humidity for the period 1979 to 2003 with that at 2013, and concludes “the specific humidity—the amount of water vapor–was well above average over land and ocean”. So yes, there has been a significant increase in specific humidity.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Robert,
As the surface temperature of the sea increases both the metabolic processes of plants and animals increase and solubility of CO2 decreases so I’m not sure their is a linear relationship between atmospheric CO2 and water temperature.
Humidity is a function of both the temperature of the air and its water content. When the temperature drops the water content of the air exceeds 100% humidity and fog forms. I don’t believe this is how clouds form. One would expect the concentration of water in the atmosphere to be greatest closest to the water source and to decrease with increasing altitude. The temperature rapidly drops in the troposphere so why, with the higher concentration of water and humidity, aren’t clouds forming in the troposphere instead of the troposphere/stratosphere boundary? The formation of clouds would indicate that the concentration of water and humidity is greatest at the top of the troposphere.
As energy is added to gas molecules the gas expands and this creates two variables: the energy of the molecules and the number of molecules (mass) transferring energy to the thermometer. If you use the universal gas law to compare kinetic energy (t) at different altitudes (P is gravity and constant) it shows the kinetic energy increases with increasing altitude. Clouds form at the top of the troposphere because that is where the liquid water crystals (See Dr. Gerald Pollack’s experiments showing that water is a liquid crystal with2melt points) melt and form liquid droplets. The problem with humidity is that the temperature measured by a thermometer is not an accurate indication of the kinetic energy of the gas molecules and the water content.
Herb
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
So Robert, Did it rain more in 2013 as opposed to 1979-2003? If more water goes into the air, then more water falls from the air. Please, live in the Tropics and you might understand this seasonal fluctuation. It rains more in the summer; less in the winter…
And the nonsense about geologic heating of the ocean?? Last time I checked, when you go scuba diving in the Caribbean, the water still gets colder the deeper you go. Also, water temps haven’t changed in 100 years in Antigua.
I hope you get paid to entertain fantasies…
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Kevin,
I think you may be mixing up weather with climate. The effects you refer to are examples of weather. Climate occurs over a much longer time frame. For example the concentration of atmospheric CO2 has been on a steady increase since 1850s, and is now higher than it has been for hundreds of years. This is due to a gradual increase in sea temperature. (Refer Henry’s Law). The sea is the closest contact we have with what happens in the magma layers of earth. There is no pay in this for me, just years of careful study.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Kevin,
Now some of us are experiencing what Copernicus and Galileo experienced. Too many believe their reasonings do not need to be constrained by what can be seen (simple observation). “if more water goes into the air, then more water falls from the air.” or what goes up must come down. ‘The pendulum’. The daily temperature oscillation even in the tropics. The seasonal heating and cooling of the tropical oceans.
I have not scuba dived anywhere but I trust you when you report that in the Caribbean the water still gets colder the deeper you go. Cause? Multiple factors: Its water is being heated at the top by solar radiation and because of the high relative humidity due to higher temperature of the surface water it is not being significantly cooled by evaporation. The warmest water is at the surface is because at its temperature the warmer water is less dense than cooler water. It is only near the water’s melting temperature that liquid water’s density gradient reverses as the temperature decreases. Hence, the Arctic Ocean system is quite different from that of the Caribbean where solid water floats on liquid water.
For 2000 years the intellectual community believed that the Earth stood still and the rest of the universe was revolving about it. Can anyone imagine what could not be explained by that absolutely wrong idea that was reasoned by the brilliant philosophers who clearly were not scientist who limited their reasoning with simple observations.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Kevin,
Relative to the temperatures of the Caribbean water at depths and the Arctic Ocean water at depths, I do know because I have not read about the temperatures being measured at a depth of a mile or two.
But I can imagine that the bottom water at the greatest depths is being heated by the nuclear fission reactions occurring in the interior of the solid earth. So that a non-equilibrium situation is created where the density of the bottom water is less than that above it. But this less dense water does not rise from the bottom by the buoyancy principle because their is no more dense colder water to flow beneath the less dense warmer water.
I had to make this comment before some one wrote to tell me about this possible warmer ocean water that has been observed at the bottom of certain ocean locations (depressions).
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Jerry,
We hope you are staying out of harm’s way. The press we see coming from your part of the world leaves us completely gob smacked.
To your specific query: “You both make statements in your comments which you do not supported with any actually measured data.” My measurement references are included with my PSI publication at Global Cooling – Beware the Snowman Cometh I have checked your reference page and see a great deal of short term data showing temperature variations across the US. The global cooling consideration Herb and I are referring to is on a much wider time scale.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Robert,
I wrote: “After doing this, please report back to PSI Readers what you judge the value of these measurements might be..
You just wrote: “I have checked your reference page and see a great deal of short term data showing temperature variations across the US. The global cooling consideration Herb and I are referring to is on a much wider time scale.”
You did not direct;y address the value of this actually measured temperature data. So I am left to assume that you consider its value to be worthless and that you can ignore the short term variations that you see to be worthless. Especially the significant variations of the measured solar radiation being measured by a now generally accepted instrument whose measured values are all that we can ever have. And I know the data of the RAWS project did not even exist 50 years ago. So where will you getting any measured short term measurements to compare with future ‘long term’ measurements to test the validity of your reasonings about any possible longer term variations?
It seems to me that you reasoning about something that it is impossible to test (by your statement) and therefore what you are reasoning is not SCIENCE for scientific ideas need to be testable.
And since you now know about the very variable short term variation I would expect a scientist to propose a possible cause of these variations. Which I consider is very simple to do. The cause I see and reason is CLOUD.
Have a good day, Jerry
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
Climate is determined by the energy the Earth receives from the sun. Weather is how that energy is distributed around the Earth. Your data is worthless because is anecdotal and restricted in both expanse and time. In order for it to be of any value it must be combined with a great many more measurements from locations all over the globe and over a much greater time span. By gathering multiple measurements of data any atypical variations will not be given any excess importance and a more accurate result achieved. This is how science should be done. Just testing the same thing the same way over and over doesn’t mean your method or instruments are good or that your results are relevant.
If your thermometer was shaded by a tree would that mean the Earth receives less energy? A cloud is higher and scatters energy in all directions. How much difference is there in the amount of energy the cloud redirected into space and the energy radiating from the Earth absorbed by it? Do clouds disappear because they are absorbing solar energy and does that energy count as energy added to the Earth?
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
Herb wrote: “Your data is worthless because is anecdotal and restricted in both expanse and time.”
I have a question for a reader and for Herb: What actually measured data is not anecdotal by Herb’s (your) definition?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
Anecdotal data is picking the data that supports your beliefs and ignoring data that disputes your beliefs. Believers in AGW will cite a warm spell in one location and ignore cold weather in another location. You picked particular dates that supported your beliefs. Why did you not use the entire months or years? You picked a period that was cloudy one year and clear the other. That is not using data for science but for propaganda.
Herb
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Jerry and Herb,
Jerry, “You did not directly address the value of this actually measured temperature data.” Professor Endersbee’ data is an innovative use of measured satellite temperature data against NOAA CO2 data. So ‘actual measurements’ are employed. OK?
Herb, “As the surface temperature of the sea increases both the metabolic processes of plants and animals increase and solubility of CO2 decreases so I’m not sure their is a linear relationship between atmospheric CO2 and water temperature.” Similarly, the Endersbee’ formula is based on recorded data which takes into account the factors you refer to. So there is a straight line relationship between sea temperature and CO2. OK?
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Robert,
Both the metabolic and solubility changes are rapid response to temperature change. Why, historically, does there seem to be such a pronounced lag between the temperature increasing and the subsequent increase in CO2 levels?
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Robert and Herb,
I write to you both at the same time because you both seem to dismiss the value of the RAWS project’s measurements. I initially did not list what the measurements of RAWS project were. This because if you were not interested to go to the link to see what they were, I considered it a waste of my time to list them.
You both focused upon the air temperature (AT) measurements. And even after I referred to the measurement of the solar radiation neither of you have referred to this measurement which I consider more important than air temperature. Or, would you claim that air temperature would influence the air temperature and not understand that the value of the measured solar should influence of the measured air temperature.
This relationship between the measured solar radiation and the measured air temperature because I have commonly read that it is generally accepted that clouds will always reduce the measured air temperature and when I study the data to which I referred I can see this not always the case.
And neither of you has asked: What is the fuel temperature? Another fundamental meteorological measurement is that of the relative humidity (RH). And from the measured AT and the measure RH the dew point temperature (DPT) of the atmosphere is conventionally calculuated and the calculated DPT is also reported.
I ask you, did either of you notice the observable fact that the reported AT was never less than the reported DPT. Hence, the atmosphere’s DPT limits the minimum temperature of the atmosphere. So, I consider the atmosphere’s DPT must influence AT (usually during the hours of the nighttime.
So I have a difficult time understanding how you both dismiss the value of the RAWS project’s measured and reported data.
Have a good day, Jerry
and do what I asked of youYou both focused upon the air temperature measurement because air temperature is a principal climatic factor used to classify the climate of a particular region of the earth. Another principal climatic factor is precipitation and precipitation that occurs during the previous hour is also measured and reported.
You wrote: “The global cooling consideration Herb and I are referring to is on a much wider time scale.” What is time span of Professor Endersbee’ data? Climatic temperatures have been long based upon air temperatures conventionally measured about 1.5m above the earth’s surface. Are the actual temperatures measured from a satellite of the atmosphere about 1.5m above the surface? The RAWS air temperatures are commonly measured 1.5m above the surface. Do the actual air temperatures measured from a satellite vary hourly as the RAWS air temperatures do? If not, the RAWS air temperatures prove that the satellite temperature measurements cannot be actual (real time) measurements.
I directed attention to two of the more than a thousand sites. Does the actual satellite measured temperatures allow one to compare the hourly temperatures being measured at two locations (sites) only separated by a few degrees latitude?
I really have trouble understanding how (or why) you cannot see the actual value of the actual measurements of the RAWS project.
I have referred to the RAWS project’s measurement of the solar radiation being measure near the earth surface which varies over such a range that one can never be certain that the maximum value measured during these five consecutive days is the value for a ‘cloudless’ atmosphere. Here, I must correct myself when I wrote the cause for the radiations variation was cloud for there is another possible factor commonly termed ‘haze’ which a smaller particles than the common cloud droplets.
,
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
A terrible mistake, I did not delete the comment I had begun when I decided to totally rewrite it.
Reply