These glass beads explain climate change.
Most of us are convinced that climate change is solely due to the amount of carbon emissions that humans are creating due to our activities. Most detractors of this hypothesis are punished for their opinions. As in many things, I don't believe that you can create causality based on correlation. I recently came across an account of something known as the Gleissberg Cycle.
Frequency analysis of solar variability during the Holocene identifies several cycles (McCracken et al., 2013), with the most important being the 11.4-yr Schwabe cycle, the 87-yr Gleissberg cycle, the 208-yr de Vries cycle, the ~ 1000-yr Eddy cycle, and the ~ 2400-yr cycle. Even longer cycles can be identified from 10-Berilium (10Be) records in ice cores, like a 9600-yr cycle (Sánchez-Sesma, 2015). Comparison of climate and solar variability records leads to the important observation that the length of the cycle correlates with the amplitude of the climate effect observed and in general the longer the cycle the more profound effect it appears to have on climate.
Source: Impact of the ~ 2400 yr solar cycle on climate and human societies
I highly the Gleissberg cycle specifically because in addition to an 87 year (roughly) which re-started most recently about 1958 it also is the last cycle which repeats almost every 12 thousand years.
Most people are familiar with the concept of sunspots.
Source. The most recent maximum occurred in about 1957 with almost 900 being observed in 1 year. Most years sunspot activity numbers less than 200.
Source
This illustration shows that about 12000 years ago there was a significant number of sunspots diminishing until about four hundred years ago .
During the period 1645–1715, in the middle of the Little Ice Age, there was a period of low solar activity known as the Maunder Minimum. The Spörer Minimum has also been identified with a significant cooling period between 1460 and 1550.
Source: Wikipedia
Consider the sun is constantly going through a process of fusion. While most think that it is strictly hydrogen to helium, there is evidence that other elements are also created in the process. The glass beads found at the top of this discourse were found on the moon. One hypothesis is that every 12000 years there is a mass ejection of these particles as the magnetic field on the sun destabilizes. Leading up to this ejection there is an increase in sunspot activity. Increased magnetic disturbance is also echoed on the earth's magnetic field.
Source Just this past year there was a 5 degree fluctuation in the magnetic north pole position in one day. This cannot be laid at the feet of too much carbon dioxide. While CO2 plays a part in our current weather patterns, magnetic forces are also at play and not enough research has been explained on this factor.
The sun is just barely hot enough to do the hydrogen→helium fusion and accomplishes this only because of the tunnel effect.
How could it be able to make more massive elements?
Hi @quantumdeveloper
Thanks for the question. It has opened up some thought channels for me. My article was based on my intention to describing some of the thoughts on the Gleissberg Cycle which a few people are expressing.
Much as post Newtonians described the world using his concept of the laws of the universe and a bunch of mystic forces (which is probably quantum mechanics), I am struggling with making sense of information which I don't have the education to understand.
My understanding is that fusion of elements around the isotopes of iron or nickel have a net release of energy but heavier elements require the energy found in a supernova to be created. Under normal conditions a sun would only work on hydrogen/helium but what about in areas with intense gravimetric or magnetic forces. Could localized magnetic conditions in sunspots or coronal holes be sufficient to create isotopes higher than helium.
The sun is continually being showered with dust and debris. What happens to those elements in the face of solar plasma? Is it possible that some of these particles will pick up spare electrons sufficient to change their state?
There are a number of stars described as variable stars. It is possible that all stars are variable - just differing in extent. This isn't a firm opinion, just that I am creating a conjecture. What if our sun isn't in a constant state of energy production but flickers like an AC light bulb. Periodically Sol might experience micronova. The various solar cycles point toward this.
This video talks about the possibility that this is the case.