Geomagnetic field (weakening) is acting in concert with solar activity

“The climate is now transitioning to a cooling trend.” – Salvatore del Prete

Geomagnetic field (weakening) is acting in concert with solar activity

Solar activity is moderated by the geomagnetic field
By Salvatore del Prete

I want to see how many people will be left believing the AGW theory by 2020, as the climate is now transitioning to a cooling trend.

Can you imagine a cooling climate trend with not only these so called high CO2 levels but maybe CO2 still increasing as the climate cools?

AGW theory has hi jacked naturally occurring climate changes. It is unfortunate that naturally occurring climatic changes were in a warming mode from 1850-2005, but that ended in full force in year 2018 and I feel the lag times are now sufficient. A period of 10+ years 2005-2017.

If one looks at the historical climatic records, what stands out is that this period of time in the climate is in no way unique in regards to the rate or magnitude of warming , and that the climate has done this many times before.

Not to mention the lack of correlation of the global climate versus CO2 concentrations and worse yet, CO2 is following the temperature, not leading it.

My theory suggests that this is the transitional year because the two solar requirements necessary for cooling are now in, which are 10+ years of sub solar activity in general (2005) and following that , a period of time of very low average value solar parameters (2018) which are equal to or exceed typical minimum solar values between sunspot cycles both in degree of magnitude change and duration of time.

My theory is simple. It states that very low minimal solar conditions will achieve cooling by causing the overall oceanic surface temperatures to cool, while at the same time causing the albedo of the earth to increase slightly.

Less UV/NEAR UV LIGHT translating to lower overall sea surface temperatures which, by the way, have been in a down trend for many months now.

There is a case for an increase in major explosive volcanic activity tied to an increase in galactic cosmic rays, while global cloud/snow cover increases, all tied to atmospheric circulation changes, changes in EUV light, and an increase in galactic cosmic rays. This, in turn, is due to low average value solar parameters such as the low solar wind, AP index, solar flux etc.

All of the given solar activity is moderated by the geomagnetic field which can act in concert or in opposition to solar. What makes this period of time more potent is that geomagnetic field (weakening) is acting in concert with solar activity.


6 thoughts on “Geomagnetic field (weakening) is acting in concert with solar activity”

  1. Agree with most of the theory, still stand with Piers Corbyn on the Galactic Cosmic Radiation not having a substantial effect on volcanic activity. Just not enough absorption available from incoming GCR to play a large role. I still suggest hypothetically the ever moving magnetic poles are inherently causing the molten iron to wobble and displace along the equatorial masses causing magma vents to open awakening the volcanoes, redistributing the jet streams.

    Winning feels so GOOD!! KAG POTUS!!

  2. Would a lower density geomagnetic field be related to higher or lower energies? It seems, higher energies expand things more and thus density decreases; in which case, the “apparent” geomagnetic weakening is perhaps actually a strengthening of that field, into higher ranges of energy; measured density of the field perhaps decreasing, but if so, only because the field is expanding and becoming less dense while doing so?

    In that case, yes, the field is operating more in conjunction with solar energy in, than in opposition to such; such a field more able to take in or merge with incoming energies, rather than deflect such; translating into what, one might ask?

    Perhaps … more energies in at the poles and out at the equator or between to two tropic lines of Cancer and Capricorn; more charge density, greater heat … a warming dynamic taking place then … but from the inside out? Heating seas … areas in the tropic becomng unbearable for habitation … poles warming … but between each pole and the tropics a lot of atmospheric mixing … some places being hotter than normal … some places being colder than normal … that, while such a mixing dynamic progresses?

    Cyclical energy inputs in seem to be a repeating pattern now via solar wind upticks from earth facing coronal holes; that, in spite of a minimum of sunspots/flares; cyclical energy input in, and between upticks, an integration of what’s arrived?

    That integration part and parcel of the earth magnetic field shifting into a higher, less dense range of energy, as well; that field, then, being less dense, also being less deflective of incoming energies (?); energies in, as a result, better able to merge with the field energy here?

    The overall result, being expansion (?); so, expect cyclical upticks in volcanoes and earthquakes (more evidence of expansion?) post each such an integration period coupled with more energy uptick(s) in?

    Energy out via earth spots … lows … tropical storms … does that also co-relate to energy expanding out into the earth field … which field raises in energy into a higher less dense energy …and so it goes … or so it will go? See the SO – Suspicious Observers videos of Ben Davidson (ex: )

    So … lithospheric expansion, coupled with atmospheric expansion, coupled with magnetospheric expansion? Energetic expansion, also tied to energetic mixing, in each of those three spheres? No all cold, expected with an ice age shift … no all hot, at least yet … i.e., to get to all hot, first a mixing stage would have to take place?

    IF the Earth’s magnetic field is raising up in energy, into higher ranges of energy that is naturally less dense … if its present field strength measurement is related to its density … wouldn’t such a dynamic present as the field weakening … at least at that density?

    Yet perhaps the field, if expanding into higher ranges of energy, is thus actually increasing in energy … but a less dense higher energy is involved?

    A solar minimum of sunspots, does it also lose its relevancy here, as an indicator of things to come … at least while such cyclical coronal hole solar wind upticks our way continue … in which case … for now, at least … all bets based on the historical records … are off?

  3. Underwater volcanoes, solar dust, axis tilt variations (tilt) solar energy waning, changing spiritual ages, disclosure! Boy! do we live in interesting times or what?

  4. personally, I don’t think the ice cores have enough resolution to be able to truly know the relationship between temperature and CO2 – or any other data for that matter. It relies too much on theory that may be right or not. Not all theory can be proved or disproved, and the modern record of CO2 and temperature are too short to give a truly reliable relationship. In short, I question whether CO2 leads or lags or is related, in truth, to changes in temperature.

    We, as a high minded specie, tend to espouse theory that sounds nice and can’t be either proved or disproved adequately. As an example, the bending of light – aka gravitational lensing – is said to be proof of Einstein’s theory of relativity, yet the theory actually forbids any mass traveling at the speed of light, thus lensing should invalidate it. It is all in how you look at things, I guess. Like looking at a tree ring and being able to determine that this year was hot or cold, damp or dry, cloudy or sunny or was the growing season long but cool or short and hot by measuring its thickness. Do the rings carry a little sign on them that says “thickness determined by temperature this year, not because we had a lot of water and sunshine.”

    Theory is theory, not fact, just as modeling is modeling, not reality. What we do know is that it all depends on where you start your measurement as to whether we have been in a warming cycle or not, or whether there are multiple cyclic factors that makes irregular periods of warming and cooling appear on a general trend line that says the Earth is cooling and has been for thousands, perhaps millions of years.

    We humans, with our superior minds, see the world as if it is truly just some sort of analog equivalent of a digitized matrix. We see a world with infinite variations in colors and say 12 million colors on our monitors are better. A world where the “pixel” is so fine as to not be able to be measured and think our digitized screens are somehow more definitive.

    And when it comes to science, we go out and create theory and set out to prove it, overlooking as a failed experiment, every one that proved otherwise. It was only a failure of the procedure, you see, not the theory.

    Each time I read yet another theory or what is about to happen, I say to myself, and if it DOES happen as his theory says it will – Piers Corbyn, mentioned elsewhere is a good one for example, – does that actually prove his theory or does it just happen to be coincidental? Did he stumble onto part of the truth? God knows, I don’t.

Comments are closed.