“SOME day, when your daily newspaper is delivered, you may turn to a column reserved for bulletins on the sun. At least, that is the opinion of Dr. R. B. Baumegardt, Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society. of England, and one of the chief lecturers on the staff of the American National Geographical Society.
He explained this by detailing the latest results of observations of the sun on weather. and showing that there is an apparent connection between the sun’s condition and major weather changes, which vitally affect world crops. prolonged droughts, heat and cold wares.”
Yes indeed. And it is astonishing, and highly disturbing, that this basic truth (that the sun rules weather and the climate) is still ignored.
There is no money to be made by trying to control the sun. CO2, on the other hand, is a different issue called a cash cow.
ya beat me to it! and so right
follow the money (as always)
1931 — Before this day, it’s said that most people thought the Sun was just a giant light-bulb in the sky, a celestial campfire of sorts, which proves that given enough time Mann will eventually catch on, or at least someone will.
The UN now rules the Royal Astronomical Society:
https://ras.ac.uk/news-and-press/news/royal-astronomical-society-signs-climate-neutral-now-pledge
They will have no interest in the ordering of the discrete solar forcing of major heat and cold waves being an astronomical matter. The diktat from the Met Office is that human driven global heating will make heatwaves like in 2003 and 2018, happen every other year by 2050. Though if they could understand how the heatwaves were solar driven, they would learn a lot more about climate change.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vQemMt_PNwwBKNOS7GSP7gbWDmcDBJ80UJzkqDIQ75_Sctjn89VoM5MIYHQWHkpn88cMQXkKjXznM-u/pub
Another once respected scientific institution bites the dust.
It’s the Golden Rule – “He who has the gold makes the rules”. I’m seeing this too often with “previously responsible” organisations.
I do believe that people were generally smarter and had more common sense back then. We’re getting dumber in spite of all the technology and information available.
There is very little intelligence to be found in front of the computer screen.
The wheels will be falling off of the CO2 bandwagon scam shortly if this prediction comes true.
The author is a maths professor at Northumbria University UK, and the principle seems to make sense – working back from current solar events to documented historical climatic events by analyzing the magnetic solar influence on the earth etc.
“The reduction of a terrestrial temperature during the next 30 years can have important implications for different parts of the planet on growing vegetation, agriculture, food supplies, and heating needs in both Northern and Southern hemispheres. This global cooling during the upcoming grand solar minimum 1 (2020–2053) can offset for three decades any signs of global warming and would require inter-government efforts to tackle problems with heat and food supplies for the whole population of the Earth.”
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23328940.2020.1796243
Thanks for posting this paper Francis. Back in the late 80s I did some basic Geophysical research on solar cycles. Ever since that time I have always thought more work needed to be done on the interplay between the solar cycles and the magnetic field cycles of the Earth including the periodic reversal of Earth’s field. These are much longer cycles and the interference of all these cycles is complex and of great consequence.
Humans are so incredibly short sighted to believe that what we do has any material affect on the earth. The Earth is not a closed system and receives much energy from the sun, background galactic radiation, and other planets (and most pronounced, the moon) via gravitational attraction (think tides). The interplay of all these energy inputs is largely what drives the geological/geophysical processes on earth which in turn drives our climate. To believe an increase of 1 part in 10,000 of CO2 in the atmosphere can have a fundamental affect on anything is childish beyond belief. Anyone with a grade 12 understanding of Geological history or a first year university understanding of physics knows this to be laughable. Unfortunately, the joke seems to be on those that do understand.
There is no 400 year cycle in solar activity, the Zharkova model fails to hindcast previous centennial solar minima, grand or otherwise. Her 400 year cycle model is at full amplitude during the Sporer Minimum, so she invoked a supernova to account for the cold land temperatures then. The next centennial solar minimum from the mid 2090’s will be the grand solar minimum. The current centennial solar minimum concerns only cycles 24 and 25, and has been the mildest short centennial minimum for over 1000 years.
Given that the AMO is normally warmer and El Nino conditions increase during a grand solar minimum, that would suggest a moderate global warming. The cooler decades globally like in the early 1900’s and the 1970’s had much stronger solar wind states driving colder ocean phases.
A moderate global warming would be commensurate with the modest increase in CO2 is line with that theory. But the global warming fanatics have no sense of scale and claim extreme changes from moderate increases in CO2. If our thermal balance were that sensitive, life would never have developed here. We would have gyrated out of control, at any of many events from comets, asteroids, volcanoes, ice ages, etc.
But I don’t even believe that we are having a modest temperature increase, and I know nothing about the climate models, geological, astrophysics, etc. I simply know that the raw temperature data taken over the last 140 or so years show a slightly downward temperature trend. At least that is what the data that I have seen here is showing. I’m waiting for someone to produce a model that explains what the data set shows.
Well,the increase of co2 ain’t so moderate when we use co2 as basis
as we talk about 33%+.
And it has a visible impact on greening the earth which increased by 5%.
But considering how extremely low the overall co2 concentration in our atmosphere is and how weak co2 as climate gas + saturation
the AGW predictions are totally crazy.
We already have a way more potent climate gas with H2O
which exist in much much higher quantities whose concentrations are changing all the times,yet we have observed anything dramatic and disruptive just because moisture increased 10*.
In fact the thing we observe with more H2O is positive,as more H2O means a more balanced climate.
With clouds days don’t get as hot and knights not so cold.
Back to greening:
Noone would ever be so crazy to claim that a 33%+ increase of co2 would increase greening on earth by 33%+ despite the fact that co2 is the dominant molecule for life besides water – as this is not how things work.
But in terms of co2 who only has a supporting role as climate gas they pretend that it’s potential is limitless – which is total nonsense.
I suggest you email her immediately to inform her that her calculations are wrong.
Zharkova was approving of my findings which show a series of longer or grand centennial solar minima occurring on average every 863 years, with an empirically based theory for its origin. That was on LinkedIn before I was suspended for saying that there is no climate emergency on a Sadiq Khan post. I can account for the variability of solar cycle lengths, the variable intervals between centennial solar minima (from 7 to 12 solar cycles), and the variable lengths of centennial solar minima (from 2 to 5 solar cycles).
Dealing with solar cycles in isolation is only part of the problem, significant effects on the climate would be expected to correspond to the dynamic modes of all the geological processes of the Earth. I have yet to see an eigenvalue decomposition of the dynamics, and until understanding is at a level to make one possible, we are still in the world of speculation. We have clear correlation of the climate with the Sun’s behaviour, which are obvious grounds for formulating an hypothesis, but is hardly proof. It simply isn’t as completely laughable as CO2 caused global warming.
There are direct correlations through atmospheric teleconnections with weekly weather, with e.g. weaker daily-weekly solar wind states corresponding to negative Northern Annular Mode anomalies. Leading to inverse and lagged ‘climatic’ correlations through ENSO and the AMO, with e.g. negative NAM regimes driving El Nino conditions and a warmer AMO. Limiting correlations to just ‘solar cycles’ cannot work for weather, and won’t work for ocean modes either as some sunspot cycles have the weakest solar wind states at cycle maximum, and with other sunspot cycles weakest at around a year after cycle minimum. It’s the logic of the dynamic responses which matter, get any of that wrong and your math is meaningless.
“the joke seems to be on those that do understand”
The climate criminals DO understand 0nly too well the fraud they have been peddling since the 1980’s.
Evidence in their own words here:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/05/in-their-own-words-climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/?sh=14bcc1cc68a3
+1
That’s why they call it glowball warming.
don’t forget the effects of the orbital movements of the gas giants. There’s been a couple good research papers and computer models based on real world numbers not some made up “predictions”.