Via the GWPF: Recent research by Professor Valentina Zharkova (Northumbria University) and colleagues has shed new light on the inner workings of the Sun. If correct, this new discovery means that future solar cycles and variations in the Sun’s activity can be predicted more accurately.
The research suggests that the next three solar cycles will see solar activity reduce significantly into the middle of the century, producing conditions similar to those last seen in the 1600s – during the Maunder Minimum. This may have implications for temperatures here on Earth. Future solar cycles will serve as a test of the astrophysicists’ work, but some climate scientists have not welcomed the research and even tried to suppress the new findings.
New Solar Research Raises Climate Questions, Triggers Attacks
To most of us the sun seems unchanging. But if you observe its surface, it is seething with vast explosions and ejections. This activity has its origin in intense magnetic fields generated by swirling currents in the sun’s outer layer – scientists call it the solar dynamo.
It produces the well-known 11-year solar cycle which can be seen as sunspots come and go on the sun’s surface.
But models of the solar dynamo have only been partially successful in predicting the solar cycle – and that might be because a vital component is missing.
After studying full-disc images of the sun’s magnetic field, Professor Valentina Zharkova of Northumbria University and colleagues, discovered that the sun’s dynamo is actually made of two components – coming from different depths inside the sun.
The interaction between these two magnetic waves either amplifies solar activity or damps it down. Professor Zharkova’s observations suggest we are due for a prolonged period of low solar activity.
Professor Valentina Zharkova:
We will see it from 2020 to 2053, when the three next cycles will be very reduced magnetic field of the sun. Basically what happens is these two waves, they separate into the opposite hemispheres and they will not be interacting with each other, which means that resulting magnetic field will drop dramatically nearly to zero. And this will be a similar conditions like in Maunder Minimum.
What will happen to the Earth remains to be seen and predicted because nobody has developed any program or any models of terrestrial response – they are based on this period when the sun has maximum activity — when the sun has these nice fluctuations, and its magnetic field [is] very strong. But we’re approaching to the stage when the magnetic field of the sun is going to be very, very small.
She suggests it could be a repeat of the so-called Maunder Minimum – a period in the 17th century with little solar activity that may have influenced a cooling on Earth.
Whatever we do to the planet, if everything is done only by the sun, then the temperature should drop similar like it was in the Maunder Minimum. At least in the Northern hemisphere, where this temperature is well protocoled and written. We didn’t have many measurements in the Southern hemisphere, we don’t know what will happen with that, but in the Northern hemisphere, we know it’s very well protocoled. The rivers are frozen. There are winters and no summers, and so on.
So we only hope because these Maunder Minima will be shorter, the Maunder Minimum of the 17th century was about 65 years, the Maunder Minimum which we expect will be lasting not longer than 30-35 years.
Of course things are not the same as they were in the 17th century – we have a lot more greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. And it will be interesting to see how the terrestrial and the solar influences play out.
This is promising research – a new insight into our sun with predictions as to its future behavior, yet Professor Zharkova relates than some climatologists resented her discovery.
Professor Valentina Zharkova:
Some of them were welcoming and discussing. But some of them were quite — I would say — pushy. They were trying to actually silence us. Some of them contacted the Royal Astronomical Society, demanding, behind our back, that they withdraw our press release. The Royal Astronomical Society replied to them and CCed to us and said, ‘Look, this is the work by the scientists who we support, please discuss this with them.’ We had about 8 or 10 exchanges by email, when I tried to prove my point, and I’m saying, I’m willing to look at what you do, I’m willing to see how our results we produced and what the sun has explained to us. So how this is transformed into climate we do not produce; we can only assume it should be. So we’re happy to work with you, and add to your data our results. So don’t take the sunspots which you get, we can give you our curve. Work with our curve. So they didn’t want to.
Professor Zharkova’s work may have significantly improved our ability to forecast solar activity. If we do enter a new Maunder Minimum, then we are bound to discover new things about our sun and its influences on our climate.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
solar constant = does not exist
Just like Climate stasis does not exist.
With a large enough Grant anything can be proved, kind of anyhow.
With a large enough lever, you can move the world too. 😉
The solar constant is the maximum amount of solar energy per unit of area that falls on the surface of the earth. Somewhere around 600 watts/ sq. meter. But you knew that.
[??? The solar constant is the yearly average energy received ABOVE the earth’s atmosphere at the average earth-sun distance per square meter perpendicular to the sun. Closer to 1362 watts/m^2 than to 600/watts/m^2. .mod]
Large enough hockey stick, anyway.
Nice touch!
A number of years ago, I was angrily lectured by an atmospheric scientist, and he informed me, in no uncertain terms, that “insolation is a CONSTANT!”
You have to take things in context. If he meant that up till now from the time of the Industrial Revolution, he’s right, which means up till now we can say that warming has not been caused by solar changes. If that’s not true in the future, that’s a different matter.
He meant the models say so!
But it demonstrably isn’t.
The higher energy component of TSI fluctuates by about 100%.
The sun is a variable star, especially in the high energy part of its spectrum.
Which is not really a valid point. It is like saying that a billionaire’s wealth is measured by the number of loose gold coins in his pockets.
@ur momisugly the Maunder minimum there were no $ billionaires or micro-sunspots, only pound weights and eyeball sunspots.
> solar constant = does not exist
Why only ‘solar’? There are no provably exact constants (i.e. coefficient and rate measures) in physics. Even the so-called gravitational constant varies on a cosmological scale, so trying to discover entities with properties that are “exactly constant” is hopeless.
Rather, the challenge to physicists is observe and find measures that can be assumed to be nearly constant under conditions that permit testable hypotheses to be simplified to the extent that useful predictions can be made. (“Simple as possible”, Einstein said, “but not too simple”).
For example, the ratio of pendulum-length over gravitational force is not exactly a constant. It also depends on the amplitude of the pendulum. But for small angles the ratio is ‘constant enough’ to build clocks accurate enough for everyday use.
The total solar irradiation, aka ‘solar constant’, varies slightly (~0.1% over the duration of an 11-year solar cycle. This is virtually a constant, considering that the variation in TSI caused by the Earth’s orbital eccentricity is an order of magnitude larger.
Meteorology/climatology is saturated with simplifying assumptions of constancy.
This is virtually a constant, considering that the variation in TSI caused by the Earth’s orbital eccentricity is an order of magnitude larger.
Almost TWO orders of magnitude larger…
Yet that ~0.1% equals the 2 watts/sqm of variance that accounts for a majority of the observed warming. Add in the data from surfacestations.org that shows that up to half of observed warming is solely Urban Heat Island effects of land use changes of urbanization, from forest to field, field to farm, farm to surburb, suburb to urban, urban to right next to the HVAC in the middle of the parking lot. So, how much of the remaining 10-20% maybe, at most, are you saying is actually due to CO2 (and not to, say, Methane, or CHC, or changes in aerosols, or soot, or a host of other factors)? Evans has shown that CO2 is maybe, at most, 10% of the observed warming. Now, how much of that CO2 is man made, vs a reaction of the ecology to previous natural warming, that often lags warming by 50-200 years?
Well you are wrong on [that] assertion.
The values of (c) (epsilon-nought) and (mu-nought) are exact and never change.
Also the value of (g), the standard gravitational acceleration due to earth’s gravity is also exact. at 9.80665 ms^-2.
Now that last one is tricky.
That is NOT what the actual earth gravity is at any point. It IS the defined value for the term: one (g) = 9.80665 ms^-2.
But of course the acceleration due to gravity on earth is seldom exactly one (g) (gee).
But the other three are exact, +/- nothing.
G
Correct me if wrong. I’m not a physicist nor do I play one on blogs, but IMO the maximum speed of light is a constant. Recent work shows that under some regimes, it can be a bit slower than that maximum, however.
I don’t know if the rate of acceleration of the universe has been observed to be constant or not.
how about speed of light?
in vacuum of course….
re: speed of light and other physical constants etc.
As I said above, their “constantness” (i.e. time independence) cannot be proven in a mathematical sense, only proposed in theory and verified by observation. So constant for all practical purposes, but subject to change on a large scale.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constant#Tests_on_time-independence
“By definition, fundamental physical constants are subject to measurement, so that their being constant (independent on both the time and position of the performance of the measurement) is necessarily an experimental result and subject to verification.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light
Nothing in science is “provable” in a mathematical sense.
Science is testable and falsifiable, not “provable”. Proof is a mathematical concept or operation, not scientific.
The constant of the speed of light is observed, not “proved”, which is a human concept. Observation is a fact, not a concept.
Scientific integrity is likewise an assumed constant that seems to be diminishing in the modern era, at least in some fields. I almost said disciplines but most climate studies are anything but!
I should say concept or construct.
Science is reality. Math is a useful fiction.
I can give you one cast iron constant. My wife wont let me watch motor sports.
Death, taxes, the guy in front of you always taking the last parking space.
The total solar irradiation, aka ‘solar constant’, varies slightly
====================
The unstated assumption behind TSI is that earths climate responds to watts/m^2 above all else.
However, a boiling pot of water remains at 100 C no matter how much you turn up the heat. Yet if you change the air pressure in the room, the temperature of the pot of water will change! Yet if you were to tell 100 people this simple fact, probably 99 of them would tell you that you were wrong.
This very simple experiment shows the fallacy of trusting thought over observation as the means to deduce science and nature. What seems logical often turns out to be wrong, and what seems illogical often turns out to be correct.
re: speed of light and other physical constants etc.
==================
what about the speed of light in water as compared to a vacuum? light travels only 3/4 as fast through water as it does through space. Light travels slower through air as compared to through space.
Even in space the constant speed of light requires that clocks and distances are variable in absolute terms, depending upon the speed and acceleration of the observer. so if clock and distances are not constant, how can one trust that distance/time is constant? and if distance/time is not constant, then speed is not constant, and thus the speed of light is not constant.
C is not necessarily a constant, it is defined by the permittivity of free space ε0 – It is ε0 that is the perceived constant which then results in C being nearly constant in an (Approximate) vacuum. However is ε0 really unchanging, for example what “Bends space time” near masses or bends the path of photons near black hole event horizons. Does gravity affect ε0 and therefore C?
As I recall it the statement is actually not that C is a constant but rather C can’t exceed the Maximum of its speed in a medium with the permittivity of free space, that is, there is no known medium with permittivity LESS than that of a vacuum.
We try to apply that constant over all of spacetime, however is that true?, for example is the redshift not due to acceleration, but due to the expansion of the universe causing a reduction in the (density) permittivity of free space over time?
It’s much more interesting to ponder the things we don’t know than the things we don’t
Do democrats have a tax plan waiting for the cooling phase too?
Them Crimeatologists probably do
“This is virtually a constant, considering that the variation in TSI caused by the Earth’s orbital eccentricity is an order of magnitude larger.
Almost TWO orders of magnitude larger…”
You say that is though solar irradiation is the only variable. Variations in solar magnetic flux and solar wind, its associated impact on cosmic radiation, and cloud formation could be very significant.
You can be sure that the solution to global cooling will be exactly the same was global warming … stop using fossil fuels, and give the government your money.
Cooling is climate change too.
We might have got the sign wrong but there’s no doubt now it’s worse than we thought and ditto the funds.
Sure. Already in place. Higher taxes on the fossil fuels people will have to burn to stay warm during colder winters.
If we return back to the frigid ’60s and ’70s, heating oil and gas will go through the roof, so to speak. The poor will freeze to death without subsidies, despite high hydrocarbon production these days.
It’s the “solar more-or-less-constant”.
Climate change biggest scam ever
“Of course things are not the same as they were in the 17th century – we have a lot more greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. And it will be interesting to see how the terrestrial and the solar influences play out.”
And if the terrestrial things have no effect?
Over the short term, the effect of any insulator is to keep its object warmer than it would be otherwise. CO2 is not really a warming gas so much as it is an insulating gas. The same can be said for H2O although H2O is obviously more important because it is a major source of enthalpy transport. If the source of energy to any object surrounded by an insulator is reduced the temperature of the object will begin to fall after a time lag that depends on its ability to store enthalpy. The TSI has been empirically known to vary with the solar magnetic field. We should have a lower TSI for the next 30 years at least. It has been my observation over time that the temperature of the contents of any tea kettle depends more on the height of the flame under the kettle than the contents of the kettle. All being equal, this will yield a colder period in the future.
C14 calibration curves appear to be compatible with theories such as those advanced by Svensmark.
It’s ok. The CO2 will eventually be wafted into space by the solar wind.
http://sci.esa.int/cluster/58028-the-curious-case-of-earth-s-leaking-atmosphere/
“we have a lot more greenhouse gas in the atmosphere”
——————————————————————————————
My objection is in your use of ” a lot more “. The reality is we are still talking in the Parts Per Million are we Not? So let’s not use Exaggeration
To put it in familiar terms, the amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere over the last century is the same, proportionally, as adding ten people to a full football stadium.
Talk about over crowded
A lot more IS a relative term …Relative to a preindustrial measurement of 280ppm we’ve increased that by 120ppm or not quite a 50% increase
Indeed. Couldn’t agree less. It is not remotely feasible that a change to a tiny quantity could have any effect on, say, plant growth. The smallness of the numbers proves this beyond any doubt.
1.2 parts per 10,000 over the last 150 years. I always wondered to what the CO2 replaced, Oxygen, and Carbon, Nitrogen, I doubt if atmospheric density has varied much, since there’s no actual container. It would just expand upwards. Therefore the density should remain fairly constant?
Interesting note, that increasing CO2 levels are very beneficial above 6000 feet altitude where plants normally begin having difficulty respirating.
Phil Bickel
You have to look at the rest of the atmosphere to understand that the “what does it replace?” question really doesn’t matter.
Count what is in a “Pure and pristine atmosphere” – You know, the one that existed before that nasty industrial revolution that has saved so many lives:
Find some 1,000,000 gas molecules. 780,000 nitrogens 210,000 oxygens 1,000 water vapors (varies !) 900 Argons 280 CO2 992,180Today, we have added (according to conventional theory) 120 more CO2 molecules to the mix, but that burned (consumed some 120 of the O2 molecules (240 Oxygen atoms), did it not?)
So, today we have 780,000 nitrogens, as N2 209,880 oxygen, as O2s 1,000 water vapors (varies !) 900 Argons (as Ar) 400 CO2 992,180Total gas pressure goes up?
Theoretically?
Really? Nah.
Oxygen goes down? Not really.
CO2 goes up? Yes, and the world is better because of it.
It is all in the multipliers. The CAGW models produce no noticeable heating UNLESS you add in feedback with multipliers of the water vapor and the CO2.
Considering that the oxidation process locks up Oxygen by combining it with the Carbon atom when burning, the CO2 would be replacing free oxygen. While Photosynthesis somewhat reverses the combination extracting some, but not all, of the Carbon and releasing some, but not all, of the Oxygen to repeat the cycle.
So, since c. AD 1900, Earth’s atmosphere has gone from, by parts per 10,000 of dry air, 7809 parts nitrogen, 2096 oxygen, 93 argon and three carbon dioxide molecules, plus small amounts of other gases, to 2095 O2 and four CO2 today.
The horror!
Average global moisture content, by contrast, is around 300 parts H2O per 10,000, but varies from about four in the cold, dry polar deserts during winter to 400 or more in the moist tropics. As all know, water is a much more potent GHG than CO2, molecule for molecule, let alone its higher mean concentration, on the order of 100 times.
[It may be clearer to readers to use the per 1,000,000 number. .mod]
No wonder I gasp for breath now when climbing mountains, compared to during the 1970s!
Couldn’t have anything to do with being 40 years older. Nah! It’s that extra molecule of nasty, evil, suffocating plant food in the air.
Green House Gases are responsible for a form of cooling no other gas type performs.
When you look at sunlight charts showing light striking atmosphere, vs light striking Earth’s surface,
the only type notches you see in that incoming light,
are all caused, by green house gases.
These gases stop some 19-22% of sunlight energy ever reaching earth; there’s a little heating and most of the light not reaching Earth, is deflected out to space.
The sun’s light is comprised of about, 40% infrared; and it’s this infrared, being blocked where you see those notches, in the sunlight arriving top of atmosphere, vs at surface.
Without the presence of Green House Gases, this cooling comprising 20% of sunlight failing to reach the planet could not occur.
Believers in AGW and Green House Gas warming have no answer to how these very gases stopping a fifth of all energy arriving, warm the planet. It’sanother of the infinite number of reasons they refuse to discuss their ”science” with real scientists.
”It’s settled science” means ”nothing I say will stand up to even casual examination.”
To Mr. Seaice below: Yes, the change to a trace gas such as CO2 is an even smaller trace. However, its effects on plants are quite observable, even on a decade-to-decade basis. Here in central Virginia, certain tree leaves are the largest I’ve seen, and yields of many food staple crops have increased substantially due to the additional carbon dioxide. So, even if we’re looking at parts per million, the difference can be great. The parts of Africa that have been greening up with the increase of CO2 are another piece of evidence of how much difference even a minute fraction of the atmosphere can make.
Invest in a good Parka and snowshoes.
“Invest in a good Parka and snowshoes”
Insulation and ammo too.
Not to mention water and food, as well as plenty of warm clothing.
Invest in a good parka and snowshoes!
LOL, we have a lot more greenhouse gases in our atmosphere ? We have 3.8 parts per 10,000 molecules now compared to 3 parts per 10,000 before. So less than 1 part per 10,000 increase is deadly ? How moronic you people are.
Moronic is a strong term. Look at your own math. If the atmosphere just went from 3 to 3.8 parts per 10,000 , then this is a 26.67% increase over the last century. It is totally possible that this level of increase could produce dramatic results. Maybe it isn’t proven, but it is possible. It certainly isn’t moronic, so take your name-calling elsewhere.
Global cooling/warming/climate change has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with global redistribution of wealth.
Amen. One more molecule per 10,000 isn’t a run-away control knob no matter how insistent Al Gore and John Kerry are that it is.
Brandon,
Watch whom you call moronic.
The main GHG is water. If the global mean for H2O be 300 parts per 10,000, then increasing CO2 by one molecule per 10,000 raises the concentration of the two major GHGs from 300 to 301.
Scary!
Oops. Typing too fast. Meant from 303 to 304, obviously.
No, still moronic. A 26% increase in the volume of what amounts to a trace gas has the effect of doing basically, well, nothing to the volume or distribution of all the gases in the entire atmosphere. But go ahead and lean on hockey stick graphs and charts where you cut the bottom 99.99999% of the number off to show how “dramatic” the increase of some minuscule factor might be.
Oh, and remind me to avoid your statistical reports – if they are all based on this type of reasoning they cannot be useful for anything. YOU didn’t get the math right, much less the statistics.
3/10,000=.0003 – 3.8/10000=.00038.
It’s only an eight one hundred thousandth percent increase. You are trying to make a fart in a hurricane look like a fart in a shoebox. You cannot isolate one number and solve any equation. This torturing of numbers to make something out of nothing is marketing – not math or science.
Oh, and I’m not a statistician just an english major who prefers to look for errors in reasoning in the construction of arguments. It’s the basis of any good thesis – you know – logic?
Well Biff, it’s time for you to turn off your computer and exit stage left, because if you think one part in 10,000 can’t have any effect, then your computer cannot possibly be working.
A silicon crystal has about 5 x 10^22 Si atoms per cc, so one part in 10,000 would be 5 x 10^18 atoms per cc and your computer chips contain impurities in specific areas that are a lot less than 5 x 10^18 atoms per cc.
If I’m not mistaken (often happens) ordinary high purity water contains something like 10^7 H+ ions per cc, and the presence of that negligibly small amount, substantially changes the properties of that water.
So do come back when your computer starts working again.
G
If it is a 26.67% increase or a .008% increase (depending on which numbers one crunches), the BIG point called into question is whether the increase will generate CAGW, or just mild warming, or nothing at all.
Brandon,
You need a better analogy than your % increase to make a valid point.
By your logic, if I have 1000 dollars and 1 penny, and I earn another penny, increasing the number of pennies by 100%, am I richer by a significant amount? Your line may work on a warmest blog but does not carry any weight here.
A large % increase in a small portion may not have any effect unless we are dealing with a dangerous substance like SO 2 which CO 2 is not.
Gabro you have it wrong. Water vapor is the opposite of a greenhouse gas. Clouds are a cooling agent bouncing sunlight back into space as opposed letting it hit and warm Earth. Lower magnetic activity by the sun allows more cosmic ray exposure on Earth and cosmic rays cause cloud formation which cools the Earth by blocking sunlight.
” … we have a lot more greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.”
Shouldn’t ‘gas’ be plural? Or are you implying that water vapor and methane are not gasses?
Since we wiped out the American Buffalo or bison or whatever we were short on CO2 so we invented autos to bring Constance back.
I for one hope this so-called “discovery” is covered up… I prefer living under a government that wants to tax the air we breathe… because that’s “Progress”….
Exactly! Perhaps somebody could find and show the “Minnesotans for global warming”! cover of the “monkeys” song
“Now I’m a believer”!Lol.
funny
Correction: The govt does NOT want to tax the air we breathe; only the air we exhale.
Give them time, they’ll get around to the air we breathe.
Per the Beatles:
” If you drive a car, I’ll tax the street
If you try to sit, I’ll tax your seat
If you get too cold I’ll tax the heat
If you take a walk, I’ll tax your feet”
I’ve been saving up for the day I get taxed.
Next crazy rational step: charge a tax on paying tax.
Because giving your money to the government is a luxury, and fair wealth redistribution demands a tax on all luxuries.
Don’t worry, The Australian government has that covered, we pay 39c a litre in Fuel Excise tax, upon which they charge 10% GST leading to fuel excise being taxed by 10% (3.9c per Litre).
According to the climate models the sun is not a major factor in climate. We are about to find out that this is another thing which is wrong about the climate models.
No, the climate models don’t predict what the Sun will do. They can’t. They’re models of the Earth, not the Sun.
So they don’t say that the Sun isn’t a major factor.
John said nothing about predicting what the sun will do.
His comment was in regards to the modelers claim that they can ignore the influence in the sun because it’s changes have no impact on the earth’s climate.
Your side often trembles when discussing major atmospheric dust clouds covering large areas of the planet from volcanoes or nuclear weapons. The clouds would block the sun and cause cooling. If the sun isn’t THE major factor, what is? Just because it is difficult or impossible to predict the sun’s activity does not mean it is not THE major factor.
the son has nothing to do with it.
That’s like saying in a murder the forensics experts only looked at the wounds and the ax found next to the body wasn’t a factor in their consideration.
Climate models can’t predict what the terrestrial climate will do, either.
I can, different day different temp., especially Dec. 22.
Well the “climate models (I think they call them ” global circulation models ” for some reason,) but that’s weird because nothing seems to be circulating in those models, which is why they aren’t models of any planet we are familiar with.
G
No, no, the models themselves are circulating around the globe to be used by clics worldwide.
I was looking for a paper of this, I only found a poster-abstract: https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm15/webprogram/Paper64369.html .
Is there a link to a reviewed paper??
This is what Dr. Abdussamatov (Puklkovo observatory) has been saying for decades. The next maunder minimum will see Europe like present day Siberia. Buy your fur coats!
Everyone fire up your SUV’s and start smoking. It’ll save the planet.
I was in broadcasting for thirty+ years, running stations, also managing at network level. An accursed den of no-account, bottom feeder liars, colluders, pimps and thieves.
But I digress.
I became acquainted with long range climatologist Dr. Iben Browning in 1982. Holder of several patents, weather consultant to Paine Webber, fruit and vegetable growers’ associations around the world, ex-Sandia Lab scientist during the Cold War. The Browning newsletter went all over the world; he was incredibly accurate (more so than the U.S. Naval Observatory). He contended that there are THREE main drivers of climate. (BTW he NEVER predicted; he PROJECTED). 1.) Solar cycles – he would concur with these findings); 2). Cycles found in the earth’s radiation belts and the earth’s minute changes on its axis; and 3.) Crustal plate cycles or “tides” on the earth (very long term).
He insisted that we were headed for significant global cooling, mentioned the “Little Ice Age” and its drastic effects. He mocked the arrogant assertion that mankind was a climate driver with CO2 emissions, a compound that feeds the plants and enhances growth. He held that data was already being massaged back then to support the narrative.
He related that when Mount Pinatubo erupted, within mere days the entire globe was seeing red sunsets. Volcanic activity increases with movement of the crust; volcanoes eject monstrous plumes and widespread, lingering ash clouds reaching tens of miles in the air within minutes, circulating globally. Man is zilch. Nature corrects itself.
He was very outspoken about the coming scam amongst his “colleagues” in academia, as well as politicians and other weasels. He claimed “global warming” would be the biggest transfer of wealth and power in recorded history. He really made some VERY powerful enemies, he was essentially alone in his battle, and his end was quite sad.
Not long after our dinner, he made a “projection” (NOT a dire “prediction” of doom as the media ran away with,) about the potential for an earthquake on the New Madrid fault. The last time that fault let loose, the Mississippi River reversed its flow. His enemies and their ravenous sycophants in media distorted his memo, enabled by his establishment enemies. Hysteria was fanned relentlessly, covered by “journalists” the world over. He was roundly ridiculed and given no platform, granted no interviews, to correct the record.
I called him when I got the newswire at the TV station I was managing, knowing the press was lying. He was in tears; nobody had contacted him for his side of the issue. He had reporters crawling in the bushes under his daughter’s window, but had no say-so. Sadly, I personally knew some of the creeps pushing this from my days in TV. He died soon thereafter. A gentle, caring but bold and forceful man, destroyed by the machine that today wants to jail us deniers.
Reprehensible.
The last I heard, his daughter Evelyn Browning Barris was still publishing the Browning Newsletter. Not much remains of anything about his career, save for his public excoriation and humiliation.
Be very circumspect about challenging; know your data, and stick up for one another.
I was looking for a peer reviewed paper about this stuff. I only found a poster-abstract. Is there any link to a paper?
Read Dark Winter by John L. Casey. It pretty much comes up with the same conclusions at this study.
Yes, Troy, it does.
Frank, you can start here with a paper she published a few years ago I found compelling:
Simon J.Shepherd, SergeiI.Zharkov and Valentina V.Zharkova, “PREDICTION OF SOLAR ACTIVITY FROM SOLAR BACKGROUND MAGNETIC FIELD VARIATIONS IN CYCLES 21–23”, Astrophysics Journal, November 2014.
It’s earlier work but outlines the basics. I’ve been following the Zarkov/Zarckova’s work for a few years, I think they’re on to something, to the extent I purchased land and a home in an area about 1000 miles south of the area I was living 10 years ago.
I’m not looking forward to the world predicted by them, but I do take their work very seriously and I find it compelling. The word of today is nothing at all like the world of the Maunder Minimum and it’s my opinion our modern world, with its dependence on industrial agriculture, will not survive in any form we might recognize. I honestly had hoped I wouldn’t live to see it. If it comes to pass I suspect we will experience global starvation.
Edit:
“Zarkova/Zarckova’s” should be “Zarkov/Zarckova’s”
“it’s my opinion our modern world, with its dependence on industrial agriculture, will not survive in any form we might recognize.”
Mods: Please look into installing an “edit” button on this site?
EDIT 2: “I think they’re on to something”
I fixed your errors. Sadly, WordPress doesn’t have an edit function.
w.
Hi Willis. You’re correct WordPress doesn’t offer a a native “edit” function, however Disqus does and also offer a WordPress integration, you can see t used on several WordPress sites, I’m currently installing it on mine.
The advantages of Disqus are myriad, not least being it’s SEO (Search Engine Optimization) capable and also allows your forum participants to receive eMail only for direct replies to their comments. One thing that constantly hampers me when participating on WUWT is the WordPress eMail notification system, which is very course. If I want to get eMail notices for replies made to my comments, I seem to get a notice for any reply made on the thread, which can lead to an awful lot of eMail.
The details on the WordPress/Disqus integration are here:
https://wordpress.org/plugins/disqus-comment-system/installation/
Yes I was hoping to make it to 100 in 2053 but the odds look longer now.
Thanks much Willis. It seems I can’t proofread my own mistakes. Too many years depending on editors… 🙂
Isn’t Professor Zharkova one of the scientists who discovered that solar flares produce seismic waves in the Sun’s interior?
We have reserves in potential caloric availibilty since so much grain is used for other purposes including animal feed and ethinol among other things. It all comes down to replacement costs. Further, i wonder what is being used to grow synthetic meat?
I may look into potential edible by products fro fossile fuels.
Bartleby – I worked as a technical editor, among other duties, for a staff of about 50 engineers and scientists for a number of years. No one can proof read his own writing adequately most of the time. That is why we have proof readers and editors. But even they are not infallible. That is why multiple reviews before publication is recommended.
South River: As you no doubt know already, I wasn’t joking and I am truly grateful (was “greatful” before spell-check) [for] all the assistance I’ve received over the years from editors. You really are appreciated.
[But Shirley, are you serious about the praise? .mod]
And then there are the typos…
The video shows the paper. It was published in the Astrophysical Journal on 13 October 2014.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/795/1/46/meta
PREDICTION OF SOLAR ACTIVITY FROM SOLAR BACKGROUND MAGNETIC FIELD VARIATIONS IN CYCLES 21-23
Simon J. Shepherd1, Sergei I. Zharkov2, and Valentina V. Zharkova3
I assume Sergei Zharkov to be Valentina’s husband.
Although of course could be her brother or son.
Zharkov and Zharkova could be as common and unrelated as Smith and Smyth though
More likely her son, now that I check:
http://www2.hull.ac.uk/science/physics/staff/zharkov.aspx
Zharkov isn’t as common a name as Smith, which in Russian would be Kuznets or Kuznetsov. “Zhark-” means “hot”.
Also, in Russian, female names end in -a. The male form is without the A.
So Mrs. Zharkov’s name is Zharkova, or the daughter of a Mr. Zharkov . It’s not a simple spelling difference, as in Smith and Smythe.
Similarly, the patronymic of a boy, ie “son of”, as in Ivan Ivanovich (John, son of John), is -ovich, while of a girl is -ovna, as in Anna Ivanovna (Ann, daughter of John).
Well when I lived in St Louis MO, in the mid 1960s, if I told someone my name was ” smith “, the next question was: Is that two tees or is it dt.
Apparently back then, St. Louis had a large German population.
g
Geo,
It still does, but they’ve learned to speak English now.
So you were out mostly in carnival. Lots of booze, hampers spelling.
John, look at 5:21 in the video – you’ll see the Astrophysical Journal edition, article title, date of publication and authors.
The thing that strikes me, is that this was published 2 years ago, and it’s barely being reported in the media, especially considering all the mentions of “climate change” they’ve made. And what does it say about the climate modelers who find the publishing of this article to be so offensive they want it withdrawn (and for what reasons?)? It says they’re more interested in getting government grants and covering up truths than in science or finding truth – in other words, they’re crooks in bed with crooked or power hungry politicians.
Since the last Maunder Minimum didn’t make Europe look like Siberia I dont see the next one managing the trick. Its very likely things will be colder and crop yields could fall but lets not fall into the warmist habit of hyping everything to the max.
It was much colder up north in the 1970’s and we were feeding the Soviet Union because their crops were failing due to cold. If the Thames river froze and they were able to hold festivals on it during the Maunder minimum, can’t you imagine the havoc that would wreak with the world’s crop harvests and trying to feed the world population now?
There was a lot less people to feed then. Above and below the 40 lats wont be suitable for growing in the theory is valid. Billions will die, “IF”. An important IF though if you follow through on the precautionary principle, the possible danger of an extra 2c is nothing compared to the risk of the above
Interesting market forecasts for Australia, Argentina.
Bill, one reason the Thames froze was that old London Bridge dammed the Thames so it could more easily freeze over… i.e. local conditions contributed to the freeze
http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/The-Thames-Frost-Fairs/
Griff quotes and article that says
There was a Thames freeze in 1962-3 as well. Freezing isn’t “typical” but it isn’t “little ice age” only either.
Should we toss Newton, Kepler, and Maxwell out. No one ever voted on their assertions.
Exactly .The sun in the year 2005 went from an active to inactive mode therefore do not believe any predictions based on solar activity from post Dalton – present because the sun during that period of time was in an active mode.
My solar criteria is starting to be realized and will be and at that time the primary and secondary solar effects will if past history is correct ,start to impact the climate.
It is looking quite good at this juncture as solar activity seems to be cooperating after the weak maximum of solar cycle 24.
If one goes back to the Holocene Optimum and takes into account Milankovitch Cycles, and superimposes Solar activity upon this and further superimposes Volcanic activity and ENSO one will find a strong climate correlation as tied to these items in totality.
Of course those who disagree never give much credence to the climatic history data because it goes against what they want to try to convey.
I give credence to plausible mechanistic sound theoretical equations, not your ill-defined throw everything on the wall and hope some of it sticks mechanism.
Has Bush been messing with his Sun machine again? Owl Gore needed, STAT!
http://dandebat.dk/eng-klima7.htm
More data from the past which shows this period of warmth is NOT unique.
I am going to keep harping on this to expose how misleading the AGW enthusiast when presenting their case to the public.
Five cornerstones from where I come from on the climate issue are as follows:
1. Past history shows this period in the climatic record is not unique.
2. Past history shows that each and every time solar enters a period of PROLONGED minimum solar activity the global temperatures have responded down. I have listed the criteria (in the past) which was last met in the period 2008-2010. With that said I think there is an excellent chance of this criteria being met presently and this time the duration could be much longer.
3. There is a GHG effect but I maintain it is more a result of the climate/environment rather then it being the cause of the climate.
4. If one looks at the climate just since 1950 -present(to take a recent period of time) and factors solar, volcanic activity, global cloud cover and ENSO versus resultant temperature changes one will find a very strong correlation.
5. Temperature data of late must be met with suspicion. I maintain satellite temperature data is the only valid temperature data.
Remember if global cloud coverage should increase and snow coverage/sea ice coverage should increase in response to prolonged minimum solar conditions that would accomplish the albedo to increase. Even a .5% to 1% increase would wipe out all of the recent warming.
Albebo is hard to change and at the same time it takes very little change in it to have climatic effects.
It is similar to Ice Age conditions versus Inter-Glacial conditions; hard to go from one regime to the other but at the same time the change required is very minimal. It is a balancing act which most of the time is in balance but every so often factors conspire to throw it out of balance which we know when we look at the climatic history of the earth.
CLIMATIC HISTORY – which is totally being ignored by the AGW movement has to be kept in the forefront and I am going to do that each and every time I combat their notion that this period of time in the climate is somehow unique.
I wonder what it is going to take to get the truth out about this period of time in the climate which is by no way unique?
What is going on here? This is a travesty! Somebody could at least call Al-Buffoon!! Arrest the doubters!
Considering the fact that NO so called Climate Model considers variations in Solar Output to have ANY bearing on CAGW, it will be very interesting to watch the END of the Climate Change Agenda once the TRUE variable in Climate Change – the Sun, takes effect in the coming years. We have already seen a decrease in the temperatures following the end of the current El Nino cycle which show a rapid drop-off in temperatures from the 1998 cycle, which can best be explained by the current Solar Minimum.
At a minimum, this potential new Maunder Minimum will minimize the practice of minimizing solar effects in long term climate models. That means it will receive maximum attention from profit maximizers in the maximum scare biz to marginalize it.
What an interesting response to her unimpeachable offer of cooperation. The search for truth requires….searching for the truth.
The search for particular numerical answers to questions that avoid the truth is something else. Of course they didn’t want to cooperate on a level playing field! Good grief! That sort of collegiality opens the door to conclusions that may not fit ‘the agenda’. Such conclusions would be ‘off message’. CAGW is all about ‘the message’.
Even if she had instead offered to take a junior role in approving her own research, they still wouldn’t have accepted it because they know full well from their own studies that open-ended questions about the solar-Earth link to climate bring nothing but problems for the ‘message’. Questions already raised about GCR (ozone, Prof Lu; CCN, Dr Svensmark) are problem enough and clearly point to that round thing in the sky and an important variable. Establishing a clear link between the magnetic engine(s) in the sun offers nothing positive for the ‘message’ – only a downside, followed by messy, work-intensive downside message management.
Rejecting cooperation is one thing, but the real sin is to try to interfere with publication. That is unpardonable because that action is anti-science.
Yes, but… anti- science is the new science. Grantsmanship sets the standard.
They have standards??
I’m glad that at least in solar science, colleagues are defined as questioning and pushy. Good research requires that you offer it up for duplication, replication, and robust application. Trial by fire. If she can’t take “pushy” colleagues, she should get out of the game.
Oh thank goodness. After all the global warming, it was getting a bit too hot.
I’m still waiting for anyone to explain how or why they “know” the Earth’s current temperature, is “wrong.” Please, someone tell us what is the “right” temperature of the planet Earth. Scientific proof would be a bonus.
The Earth has been much warmer, and much cooler, in the past, absent any man made CO2. I also understand the Earth is still technically coming out of an Ice Age. I also understand the Sun is major influence on Earth’s climate. Our technological advances in measuring and monitoring have enabled us to generate lots of data, but I think we’re far from understanding the complexities of the inter-relationships/inter-dependencies. My guess is the Sun’s influence far outweighs most anything mankind can do.
As it happens sun is (and will be at least for next week or so) active well above its recent average
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_1024_HMIIC.jpg
“but some climate scientists have not welcomed the research and even tried to suppress the new findings.”
Of course. Climate science is all based on a lie that man is responsible for global warming and the last thing they will do is allow the truth to be revealed.
What about the hole in the ozone layer? or the Hockey stick? or The Day After Tomorrow!!!! OH!!! the humanity!!!! ….Btw…I have a whole pallet of carbon credits for sale, cheap.
If things do get cold, they already have excuses lined up “the Atlantic did it”
I’m expecting “mankind did it”.
so… a scientist that says models are just that and we will have to see if this happens. Global warming scientists seem to thing their models are facts carved in stone only to be changed as we move past the time when the predictions didn’t happen (Al Gore). That’s right, look at the predictions of twenty years ago. COMPLETELY WRONG. Oh, that’s right we aren’t supposed to talk about that. I lived through it folks, Al won a Nobel Peace prize for prediction that haven’t even been close.
The sun is on it’s way down this activity is nothing of consequence.
Is this new research from Dr. Zharkova, et al., or just a re-posting of last summer’s article?
Looks like a rehash of last year’s. Now as then, the ‘theory’ is thoroughly debunked:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/1512-05516-Zharkova-Fail-by-Usoskin.pdf
A two-wave dynamo model was recently proposed by Zharkova et al. (2015, Zh15 henceforth), which aims at long-term predictions of solar activity for millennia ahead and backwards. Here we confront the backward predictions for the last 800 years with known variability of solar activity, using both direct sunspot observations since 1610 and reconstructions based on cosmogenic nuclide data. We show that the Zh15 model fails to reproduce the well-established features of the solar activity evolution during the last millennium. This means that the predictive part for the future is not reliable either
Simply plotting the ‘theoretical’ values against observations how how wrong they are:
http://www.leif.org/research/Zharkova-2015-Double-Dynamo-Fail.png
They e.g. have the timing wrong, e.g. saying that the Dalton Minimum was around AD 1750, while it should have been around 1815.
They do have the Dalton Minimum offset to the left, ie too early. There was an 18th century warming cycle between the two cold snaps.
The Dalton is variously delineated as from 1790 to 1830 or 1796 to 1820.
Their hindcast does however correctly show rising solar activity after the Maunder during the 18th century and a drop off toward its end.
I should add that the 18th century warming was greater in amplitude and duration than the late 20th century warming, maybe not surprising coming off the depths of the Maunder Minimum in the trough of the LIA.
The Dalton was the last blast of the LIA, although the world muddled along colder than usual (ie, trend of the past 3000 years) until the middle of the 19th century.
Regardless, the Zharkova et al. ‘prediction’ is simply plain wrong, in gross and in details.
Sporer should be two separate solar minima, one from around the 1430’s, and another from around the 1550’s.
Solar activity predicted to fall 60% in 2030s, to ‘mini ice age’ levels: Sun driven by double dynamo
July 9, 2015
…”We found magnetic wave components appearing in pairs, originating in two different layers in the Sun’s interior. They both have a frequency of approximately 11 years, although this frequency is slightly different, and they are offset in time. Over the cycle, the waves fluctuate between the northern and southern hemispheres of the Sun. Combining both waves together and comparing to real data for the current solar cycle, we found that our predictions showed an accuracy of 97%,” said Zharkova…
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150709092955.htm
_____________________________
When the authors say we found, do they mean they observed these waves? Or is it just a theoretical construct?
I know that there is no forecast or hindcast for this new theory. And that the data sample was a small period but, this wave theory is still interesting.
You can say it if you want Dr. S., that what happens way out there doesn’t affect anything on the sun.
And I will reply, we don’t yet know the affect of the Interstellar magnetic pressure with its big dent in the nose, polar squashing, offset solar tail on the heliospheric bubble, have on the interior solar magnetic fields propagating outward.
Oscillating solar magnetic waves out of sync. Hemispheric changes in solar magnetic fields and hemispheric changes in sun spot production amounts.
Oscillating Interstellar magnetic waves creating pressures either in the northern heliosphere or southern heliosphere in time.
Good night catch up with ya later.
And I will reply, we don’t yet know the affect of the Interstellar magnetic pressure with its big dent in the nose,
We do know that since the solar wind is supersonic, whatever happens out there cannot propagate inwards and affect the sun [or the Earth]
Zharkova’s “Heartbeat of the Sun” paper published 29 Oct 2015 is a fascinating read…downloaded via her research page at Northumbria
A classy, cautious and non-confrontational presentation. Hats off to GWPF.
(Whether there will be a discernible climate impact, I doubt anybody is more than guessing, not because they don’t know the direct effect, but because of all the likely unknown negative feedback dampening any direct external effects.)
“Professor Valentina … discovered that the sun’s dynamo is actually made of two components – coming from different depths inside the sun.”
Well isn’t that interesting. Needless to say “this has been known” for 40 years so it it either unimportant or wrong and Valentina needs remedial education, or its “nothing new”.
In any event, it is refreshing that a creative effort is being made that models the 11 year cycle and possibly more nuanced variations in the various solar outputs. Looking at the sun as an input to terrestrial climate variation seems like an obvious avenue of research to me. Although, nobody is going to get rich by way of UN handouts for this discovery. How can you tax it?
There’s the man explaining his science so concisely.
Solar Grand Maximum sunspot count and group number data was getting in the way of anthropogenic global warming.
So what to be done?
Svalgaard: “abandon them, modify them, etc.”
Precisely !
Solar Grand Maximum sunspot count and group number data was getting in the way of anthropogenic global warming.
You have this backwards. The data was getting in the way of blaming the Sun for GW, so one must abandon that ‘explanation’. You ignore the fact that the AGW crew needs the solar ‘explanation’ to explain climate variation before SUV’s.
The DATA is the raw data that we have re-examined.
What you are peddling is that if correction of known and identified errors makes the result disagree with sacred views, the correction should not be doe. This is an example of the anti-scientific attitude you have.