How a Solar Eclipse Can Make or Break Scientific Theories

Written by John O'Sullivan

Who would have guessed there was an important connection between Albert Einstein, solar eclipses and man-made global warming?

A famous event in the rise of Albert Einstein’s Theory Of General Relativity occurred a century ago.

“Thanks to the 1919 total solar eclipse, what was impossible suddenly became possible. Because of the 6 minutes that the Sun became totally dark as the moon blocked its light, scientists were able to study and measure the relative positions of stars in the Hyades cluster, strategically located where they would be useful for testing Einstein’s theory.” See: https://wallstreetpit.com/113547-solar-eclipse-confirm-einsteins-theory-general-relativity/

That total eclipse of the sun showed the scientific world an empirical proof that reshaped our understanding of space and time.

A century later independent scientists considered the remarkable drop in temperature that occurs in the path of the total eclipse. The amount varies but is always significant. For example,

“in March of 2015, the Norwegian island of Svalbard experienced a temperature drop from 8 degrees Fahrenheit to -7 degrees Fahrenheit during a total solar eclipse.”

NASA acknowledges that:

“It would probably be equal to the typical daytime minus nighttime temperature difference at that time of year and location on the Earth.”

That is made more remarkable by the fact that the period of totality lasts just minutes.

The longest total solar eclipse of the 21st century took place on July 22, 2009 when the totality lasted 6 minutes and 39 seconds.

What does this have to do with man-made global warming? 

Well, the biased UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) downplays the role of solar radiation as an energy source.

The cornerstone of such consensus climate science is the greenhouse gas theory. This tells us that CO2 and other gases in our atmosphere makes our planet 33 degrees warmer ‘than it would otherwise be.’ The theory tells us it the those ‘heat trapping’ gases in our atmosphere, not the sun that keeps us warm.

However, if the plain and simple facts are that a total solar eclipse prove that idea false. Even if we ‘switch off’ the sun for a few minutes (during an eclipse) we see that temperatures plunge dramatically.

Even a non-scientist with a basic understanding of how home insulation, over coats, scarves and gloves keeps us warm can see that those gases in the atmosphere must be very bad insulators indeed if a sudden drop of FIFTEEN degrees is felt when the sun is suddenly ‘switched off.’

We also note that when the eclipse ends, a swift return to the original daylight temperature occurs. Have those atmospheric gases suddenly shot a wave of heat into the atmosphere? Of course not.

Thus this simple demonstration tells us how flawed are junk science concepts about heat trapping gases.

Independent scientists (not to be confused with those grant-chasing government-funded academics) have recognised the great significance of the role of the sun in climate. The IPCC downplays the role of solar radiation as an energy source. It also ignores changes in the sun/climate relationships including, Svensmark’s Cosmic Theory and the impact of changes in Sun/Earth relationships collectively known as the Milankovitch Effect.

Consensus science needs to abandon the greenhouse gas hypothesis, which fails to take realistic account of such external factors, and greater research focus should be placed on cosmic forces hitherto overlooked during the last 30 years of dark political expediency.


John O’Sullivan is CEO of PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the  UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. Telephone: Calls from within the UK: 020 7419 5027. International dialling: (44) 20 7419 5027. 

Please DONATE TODAY to help our non-profit mission to defend the scientific method.

Comments (9)

  • Avatar

    jerry krause

    |

    Hi John,

    John has just used observation (which has been observed each total solar eclipse) to prove the GHE idea is wrong. No argument needed.

    Good job, John Now, can we begin to construct a new ‘model’ of weather and climate based on other known observations. While there are other observations which also refute the idea of the GHE, there is no need to beat a dead horse. Let’s see how we can move on with better ideas and get out in front of those scientists who supported a wrong idea with their reasoning.

    Good job, again.

    Have a good day, Jerry

    • Avatar

      jerry krause

      |

      Hi John,

      You wrote: “That total eclipse of the sun showed the scientific world an empirical proof that reshaped our understanding of space and time.” Einstein would not agree with you as he has stated: “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right, a single experiment can prove me wrong.” You identified the single experiment which proved the GHE idea wrong, but it did not prove Einstein’s idea to be correct. The experiment only did not prove him wrong; it only supported what his idea had proposed.

      Have a good day, Jerry

  • Avatar

    John O'Sullivan

    |

    Hi Jerry, Nowhere does the article state that a total eclipse PROVED Einstein’s theory – but merely ‘reshaped our understanding.’ How would Einstein disagree understanding was re-shaped when it is an incontrovertible fact the scientific consensus changed thereafter?

    • Avatar

      jerry krause

      |

      Hi John,

      Please stop fighting and arguing. Enjoy the lime-light which is yours because of what you called your readers’ attentions to..

      What does “an empirical proof” mean? You did not write: it “merely ‘reshaped our understanding”. To a scientist accurate definition is critically important. Which I, a scientist with a scientific resume, consider was Einsteins’ purpose when he made his statement to clearly define what science could do and what it could not do.

      Have a good day,

  • Avatar

    Tom Martin

    |

    The Full eclipse of 2024 sweeping across the US provides an excellent opportunity for those who want to predict temp drop via GHG mitigating it or something else like Ideal Gas law and adiabatic pressure…
    May the best theory win !

    • Avatar

      jerry krause

      |

      Hi Tom,

      Accidently submitted the previous before I was done. Maybe they don’t need to wait. If they go to (https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/products/hourly02/), 2017, and choose Harrison Nebraska, and go to August 21 1100 and 1200 hrs they will find that at 1100 hrs the sun was totally eclipsed there at 1100 hrs because the minimum solar radiation for both hours was 0. And the minimum air temperature for both hours was 21.0 and 20.9C. the minimum surface temperature was 22.4 and 22.6C, and the soil temperature at a depth of 5cm for both hours was 23.4. Which explains why the surface temperature only cooled to 22.4 and 22.6C because it was being warmed by conduction from the soil below.

      Have a good day, Jerry

      • Avatar

        jerry krause

        |

        Hi Tom and other readers,

        The NOAA USCRN project has a little over 100 sites so there are other sites than that of Harrison NE which have data for the Aug. 21, 2017 solar eclipse. Oregon, where I viewed this event, has 3 sites where the minimum solar dropped to 0 and I have found others which had apparently cloudless skies during the event. These others are important because air temperatures, surface temperatures, and soil temperatures at a depth of 5cm are sensitive to the moisture content of the soil at the soil depths as well as the properties of different soil types. So there is a variety of different cooling rates to study.

        Also NOAA has a Surface Radiation (SURFRAD) project (https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/metplot.html) at 7 sites, of which 2 (Table Mountain CO and Goodwin Creek MS) appear to have cloudless skies during the event, which measure and record 6 different radiations and the air temperatures each minute. One interesting observed fact is how the air temperature lags the solar radiation during the cooling phase. But the detailed analysis of this data is not my primary interest.

        My interest was to get rid of the wrong idea of the GHE so other, possibly better ideas about the cause of weather and climate might begin to be thoughtfully considered. And John has done this for it only takes one experimental result to refute a wrong idea.

        Have a good idea, Jerry

Comments are closed