New Solar Research Raises Climate Questions, Triggers Attacks

earth-sunRecent 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. —Global Warming Policy Forum, 9 August 2016

Some [critics] 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 said, ‘Look, this is the work by the scientists who we support, please discuss this with them.’ –Professor Valentina Zharkova, Global Warming Policy Forum, 9 August 2016

The sun is in good shape and has a ‘healthy heartbeat’ which will last at least another five billion years, says Prof Valentina Zharkova, of Northumbria University. Professor Zharkova says this regular heartbeat of the sun is subject to predictable fluctuations of its magnetic field, and over the next few years as it enters a lull temperatures, here on earth, will plummet. Prof Zharkova says her research is ‘the first serious prediction of a reduction of solar activity and upcoming Maunder Minimum that might affect human lives’. Her predictions fly in the face of much of what is being said and written about global temperatures. Prof Zharkova said: “When it comes to controlling the earth’s temperature the sun trumps the work of mankind infinitesimally.” She added: “How this reduction of temperature will be offset by global warming and increasing temperatures caused by the technological progress of human civilization remains to be seen.” –Peter McCusker, Newcastle Chronicle, 13 July 2016

It’s not every day you get to meet a scientific hero – an earth scientist and inventor who worked for NASA in its infancy and helped to discover the devastating impact of CFC gases upon the ozone layer. Climate and energy production is not surprisingly one of his main concerns. But as to predictions about the future, he is far less certain, saying: “I think anyone that tries to predict more than five to ten years ahead is a bit of an idiot, so many things can change unexpectedly.” He added that global warming proponents stated that the earth would get hotter and hotter but “they don’t really know,” and climate models are only based on what data goes into them, so it was hard to say what would happen in the future. –Catherine Bolado, The Bournemouth Echo, 23 July 2016

Trackback from your site.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (4)

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    Since when do legitimate scientists try to “suppress” other’s scientific work?…

    “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.”

    And this begs more questions of those who push “agenda science” – Why do most climate change models discount or totally ignore solar variability?…

    “Prof Zharkova said: “When it comes to controlling the earth’s temperature the sun trumps the work of mankind infinitesimally.”

    This really sums it up:

    “I think anyone that tries to predict more than five to ten years ahead is a bit of an idiot, so many things can change unexpectedly.” He added that global warming proponents stated that the earth would get hotter and hotter but “they don’t really know,” and climate models are only based on what data goes into them, so it was hard to say what would happen in the future.

    It would seem that anyone studying the earth’s climate should START by seeking to understand and appreciate the sun’s activity. The fact that solar activity is actively avoided tells us that most current climate science is not really driven by a scientific agenda at all.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Frank Gue

    |

    This does get tiresome.

    For several centuries we have had THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, which has five steps:

    1. Collect data.
    2. Form an hypothesis that TENTATIVELY accounts for what MAY be creating the data.
    3. Test the hypothesis, bearing in mind Einstein’s caveat that ONE failure invalidates the hypothesis.
    4. Write a Law that (usually mathematically) can be used to predict the hypothetical result given certain inputs.
    5. Continually challenge the law to test its robustness (note that Relativity itself is frequently questioned 101 years after it was published). Again, ONE failure invalidates the Law.

    With anthropogenic global warming (or anything else), always ask: Where are we in this sequence of the five steps of the Scientific Method?

    I suggest that we are partway through Step 2 and that, in view of the vast distances and times involved, we will never get to Step 3.

    I further suggest that AGW (Anthropologic Global Warming) be rechristened Anthropological Global Wrecking, which is what we are actually doing and about which we can do something useful.

    Frank, Burlington.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Frank GUE Thank you for showing the conveniently forgotten
    SCIENTIFIC METHOD .
    Mann have the climate model pretenders ever forgotten Grade 10 science .
    Why haven’t more in the scientific community stood up and called BS on the rounders who don’t follow the scientific method and sell global warming as merchandise ?

    I would suggest we have slide back to step 1 as the “data ” is now so corrupt as to be almost useless .

    I sincerely hope it continues to warm and am happy to have made a small contribution .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    Frank and Amber are both spot-on. I tend to agree with Amber that step #1 has been botched so badly (often by outright fraud) that we are nowhere near the point of progressing to step #2. Moreover, when special interest groups overtly threaten those who dare question a hypothesis, something is terribly wrong with the entire premise…

    I dare true adherents of scientific methodology to defend the distortion that is today’s climate change agenda. I dare scientific ethicists to justify threats and retribution as acceptable behavior and policy. Stop the madness!

    Reply

Leave a comment

Loading Disqus Comments ...

No Trackbacks.