Global Warming or Global Cooling?


Advertisement


astronomy-discovery-earth-2422.jpg

What are your thoughts on climate change? For the last two decades at lest we have been spoon fed a global warming agenda, "the Earth is burning up", our "use of fossil fuels is causing Co2 to spiral out of control". More recently the IPCC lead by the United Nations released a report saying we have to take immediate action to save the planet from catastrophe.

During the 90's I went along with this narrative. As a person who has always been interested in weather and the climate I have always followed the subject with much interest and like most people I went along with the idea that man was warming the planet due to his excessive use of fossil fuel causing Co2 to warm the planet.

More recently, and certainly over the last five years or so I have changed my opinion on what is going on. Over the years the narrative has changed from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change". Several new reports have been released stating we're heading for a "mini ice age". Like everybody else I was confused and baffled at the mixed message coming from scientists. Since the beginning of this "global catastrophe" I have wondered why the IPCC wasn't looking at why the earth had warmed in the past? Why we've had ice ages before? Why we've had extinction events in the past?

The more and more I look at it the more convinced I am that the climate doesn't follow a linear path, but it oscillates between hot and cold, wet and dry. The IPCC temperate graph showing the temperature spiralling out of control. It doesn't show the previous Maunder Minimum or the Dalton Minimum when the climate was significantly cooler. Sudden changes in the Earth's temperature have thought to have been linked to the Sun and solar activity. Currently we are in a solar minimum. Over the next year or so we climb out of a solar minimum into a solar maximum. This is measured by the number of sun spots. During a maximum, sun spots are plentiful but the opposite can be said during a solar minimum. You would expect this to be good news but the latest predictions for the new solar maximum is grim reading as the Science is pointing closer and closer to the planet heading rapidly into a "Solar Grand Minimum" ,similar to the Maunder Minimum.

1541964791739.png
Maunder Minimum 1645 - 1715.

Earlier this month Professor Valentina Zharkova of Northumbria University released her latest findings regarding sun activity which showed almost exact correlation between the suns activity and previous solar minimums. She makes some significant predictions during her findings.

Little Iceage to hit Earth in 2020
A ‘Little Ice Age’ which caused severe winters in the 17th Century could return in five years’ time due to a predicted fall in solar activity.
This possibility was discussed during the National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno, Wales, by Prof Valentina Zharkova, of Northumbria University, alongside an international group of scientists including Prof Simon Shepherd, of Bradford University, Dr E Popova, of Moscow State University, and Dr Sergei Zharkov, of Hull University.
Prof Zharkova described the research as ‘the first serious prediction of a reduction of solar activity that might affect human lives’. If the decrease in solar activity takes place, it could result in a period similar to the ‘Maunder minimum’ of 1645 to 1700. During this period, there were only about 50 sunspots on the surface of the Sun instead of the usual 40-50 thousand, resulting in very severe winters and cold summers.
Several studies have shown that the ‘Maunder Minimum’ coincided with the coldest phase of global cooling, which was called the ‘Little Ice Age’. Due to the cold winters in Europe and North America, rivers such as the Thames and the Danube froze and the Moscow River was covered by ice every six months.
Prof Zharkova’s research is based on an analysis of solar activity. The Sun has its own magnetic field whose amplitude and spatial configuration varies with time. The formation and decay of strong magnetic fields in the solar atmosphere results in changes of electromagnetic radiation from the Sun, the intensity of plasma flows, and the number of sunspots on its surface, which varies every 11 years.
In the current study, the researchers analysed a total background magnetic field from full disk magnetograms by applying the so-called ‘principal component analysis’. As a result, the researchers uncovered a pair of magnetic waves in the Sun responsible for variations during 11-year solar activity. The scientists managed to derive the analytical formulae, describing these two waves and made first the prediction of magnetic activity in the current cycle, which gave 97% accuracy.
Inspired by this success, Zharkova and her co-authors extended the prediction of solar activity to future cycles. They discovered that the waves become fully separated into the opposite hemispheres leading to a sharp decline in solar activity in years 2020 t0 2050 – comparable with the conditions of the Maunder minimum in the 17th Century. This will lead to a reduction of the solar magnetic field and a noticeable decrease in solar irradiance.
Speaking about her confidence in her team’s work, Prof Zharkova added: “I am absolutely confident in our research. It has good mathematical background and reliable data, which has been handled correctly. In fact, our results can be repeated by any researchers with the similar data available in many solar observatories, so they can derive their own evidence of upcoming Maunder Minimum in solar magnetic field and activity.”
Following Prof Zharkova’s prediction at last week’s conference, the story has captured the public imagination with stories across the international press in the UK, USA, Australia, Germany, France, China, Russia, New Zealand, Canada, Singapore and many other countries including The Independent, The Telegraph, and Science Daily(UK), ABC News, USA Today, Washington Post, New York Times. Australia Today and numerous other newspapers and radio stations worldwide.
Prof Zharkova said: “The public imagination has been captured by the first serious prediction of a reduction of solar activity that might affect the human lives – as it did in the 17thCentury. Solar-terrestrial physics literarily enters everyone’s house – this is the main beauty of the event.”
Prof Zharkova, who works in the Department of Mathematics and Information Sciences at Northumbria, believes the research further positions the University as a leader in this area.
She said: “Yes, I think so, given what we have done so far. Previously, in 1998, we with Dr A Kosovichev, of Stanford University, USA, discovered quakes on the Sun associated with solar flares, which were reported in Nature covered by the worldwide media on five continents. This topic continues to be one of the most interested in for the past decade. Now we decided to report the new finding on solar activity at the National Astronomy Meeting to enhance the profile of the UK science and to emphasise the contribution of three UK collaborators, including Northumbria.”
Northumbria offers a range of courses across Physics, Astrophysics, and Mathematics disciplines and has recently announced investment of £6.7m in STEM facilities on campus. For more information about studying at Northumbria go to: www.northumbria.ac.uk/courses
http://www.northumbria.ac.uk/courses
 
Last edited:

Comments

Thank you for your complement!

Yes, there are many views expressed regarding climate change (I dislike the term 'global warming', as this implies that everywhere is getting warmer. Whilst the global average temperature is increasing, there are areas that are experiencing cooler conditions due to changes in weather patterns) and many groups will try and voice their view loudest and as you say, this can lead to exaggeration of facts. Groups like Extinction Rebellion may have started out with the right intentions, but seem to have attracted many extremists who are probably more interested in anarchy that the environment. We simply cannot stop using our cars overnight. Society would come to a standstill. A more sensible and measured approach is required.
The best people to trust are those who have spent their lifetime studying the subject and not Presidents who are more interested in reviving their coal and steel industries. Whilst the UK is small in comaparison to some nations, we can't just sit back thinking that we can't make any difference. I would estimate that >95% of Scientists agree that climate change is due to emissions of greenhouse gasses.
As for aviation, I believe that it contributes around 3% of greenhouse gas emissions so is not the villain that it's made out to be. We do have the prospect of battery powered aircraft in the foreseeable future, but the electricity to charge those batteries still has to be generated somewhere.
There is another 'elephant in the room', regarding climate change and that is the global population There are now twice as many humans living as when I was born. I'm not advocating anything drastic, but we do need to start looking at smaller family sizes (China has already done this).
As to how long we've got to tackle the problem -again there are varying forecasts. What we must not do is sit back and say we'll start in 10 years. Many countries have already started i.e those signed up to the UN convention on climate change (the Paris Agreement).
And then we can all make our own small contributions. Could you walk to the shops instaed of taking the car? Could you set the thermostat 2 degrees lower (I know many women who won't like that) etc.

Kevin
 
Thank you for your complement!

Yes, there are many views expressed regarding climate change (I dislike the term 'global warming', as this implies that everywhere is getting warmer. Whilst the global average temperature is increasing, there are areas that are experiencing cooler conditions due to changes in weather patterns) and many groups will try and voice their view loudest and as you say, this can lead to exaggeration of facts. Groups like Extinction Rebellion may have started out with the right intentions, but seem to have attracted many extremists who are probably more interested in anarchy that the environment. We simply cannot stop using our cars overnight. Society would come to a standstill. A more sensible and measured approach is required.
The best people to trust are those who have spent their lifetime studying the subject and not Presidents who are more interested in reviving their coal and steel industries. Whilst the UK is small in comaparison to some nations, we can't just sit back thinking that we can't make any difference. I would estimate that >95% of Scientists agree that climate change is due to emissions of greenhouse gasses.
As for aviation, I believe that it contributes around 3% of greenhouse gas emissions so is not the villain that it's made out to be. We do have the prospect of battery powered aircraft in the foreseeable future, but the electricity to charge those batteries still has to be generated somewhere.
There is another 'elephant in the room', regarding climate change and that is the global population There are now twice as many humans living as when I was born. I'm not advocating anything drastic, but we do need to start looking at smaller family sizes (China has already done this).
As to how long we've got to tackle the problem -again there are varying forecasts. What we must not do is sit back and say we'll start in 10 years. Many countries have already started i.e those signed up to the UN convention on climate change (the Paris Agreement).
And then we can all make our own small contributions. Could you walk to the shops instaed of taking the car? Could you set the thermostat 2 degrees lower (I know many women who won't like that) etc.

Kevin
Many thanks for that, Kevin. It's most enlightening.

You say we in the UK can't sit back thinking we can't make any difference, but can a relatively small country like the UK really make any measurable difference to climate change if many of the major countries do far less?

Anarchists always seem to infiltrate and manipulate any group, even a well-intentioned one as I'm sure most of the ER members who began the movement are, that has the government as a target.

My wife and I might be unusual in this regard being war babies (WW2) but we are yet to switch on our central heating this autumn. Both of us can stand the cold more easily than intense heat and simply put on another garment if the evenings begin to feel a little chilly. We don't do it for environmental reasons - we always have done it because it suits us. We rarely catch colds. I can't remember the last time I had one. When I was at work and in and out of centrally-heated buildings I used to catch a cold or two every winter.
 
I could not help smiling wryly to myself this morning after reading of Extinction Rebellion's attempts to delay London underground trains by climbing on the roof of carriages at some London stations.

One of the protestors was pulled from the roof of one train by disgruntled commuters and a photographer brought by the protestors to film the event was jostled. He complained about the time it took the police to reach the scene.

Given that our already under-staffed police forces have been stretched to the limit this summer by these protestors with entire areas often devoid of even minimal cover (we suffered in Bristol this summer with five days of protests), I found it amusing to read that the people responsible for the situation where the population as a whole cannot get a proper police service at the moment are now complaining when their actions lead to the same lack of service for them.
 
I could not help smiling wryly to myself this morning after reading of Extinction Rebellion's attempts to delay London underground trains by climbing on the roof of carriages at some London stations.

One of the protestors was pulled from the roof of one train by disgruntled commuters and a photographer brought by the protestors to film the event was jostled. He complained about the time it took the police to reach the scene.

Given that our already under-staffed police forces have been stretched to the limit this summer by these protestors with entire areas often devoid of even minimal cover (we suffered in Bristol this summer with five days of protests), I found it amusing to read that the people responsible for the situation where the population as a whole cannot get a proper police service at the moment are now complaining when their actions lead to the same lack of service for them.
The way the IPCC treats this so-called consensus of science as final only feeds this vociferous bunch of tree huggers. The IPCCs approach where no new science will be accepted this is the way it is, accept it approach has created this situation, a situation whereby some people are adamant the world is going to end. The very fact that news agencies aren't allowing new science to be published is damaging to science and damaging to freedom of speech. There is a big difference between genuine pollution and CO2, a necessary gas of life.
 
Why are ER now disrupting electric trains, which are not directly responsible for emissions and are a great alternative to road vehicles?
 
Why are ER now disrupting electric trains, which are not directly responsible for emissions and are a great alternative to road vehicles?
Exactly. This clip from GMTV made me laugh because the Extinction Rebellion co-leader couldn't answer Piers Morgan's question about whether she has a TV or iPad, symbols of capitalism that is transported around the globe on gas-guzzling container ships.

 
Why are ER now disrupting electric trains, which are not directly responsible for emissions and are a great alternative to road vehicles?
Because it's about causing maximum disruption to create awareness for the cause itself. And the trains are extremely important in London.
 
Exactly. This clip from GMTV made me laugh because the Extinction Rebellion co-leader couldn't answer Piers Morgan's question about whether she has a TV or iPad, symbols of capitalism that is transported around the globe on gas-guzzling container ships.

Piers Morgan is not one of my favourite 'personalities' but he certainly stripped bare this woman's arguments. In fact, she didn't have any.

Whereas everyone should be concerned about the possible effects of climate change the antics of Extinction Rebellion are alienating people - me included - and thus counter-productive. Already in my city there are examples of traffic lights and lamp posts being vandalised by ER graffiti. That will cost the council tax payers money to have the graffiti removed. The heavy rain hasn't removed any of it.

I've highlighted the hypocrisy of many of these activists on a number of occasions, and the interviewee is a prime example. She tells us all what we should be doing or not doing as the case may be, but obviously doesn't practise what she preaches.
 
Her arguments were unconvincing to me and, as Farage pointed out, the idea of a citizens' assembly is unworkable. Who would decide membership for starters? They would be 'volunteers' unless legislation was brought in to force people to serve as with juries which is extremely unlikely. You would simply have the already-committed flooding the assembly with no meaningful debate.

I wish that Farage had let her address his question about the UK's tiny amount of emissions in world terms and how getting Britain to put its house in order (as she would see it) would be no more than tokenism and have no meaningful effect on the rest of the world, much of which is not cutting back on emisisons but increasing them.

She wants factories closed down if they cause emissions no matter how vital to the economy and to the country they are.

Like so many of these zealots she will not listen to any counter-argument and wants to browbeat the country into submitting to their diktat.
 

There have been horrendous scenes coming from Australia with the fires continuing to burn. The press have capitalised on the situation though siting "global warming" as the main cause of the severity of the fires. In search for some balance on the subject I came across this YouTube channel by a person called Tony Heller from www.RealClimateScience.com In the video shown above Tony talks about previous fires in Australia. There will be those out there who would place Tony under the "climate change denier" category but listening to Tony makes you realise there is more to this story than meets the eye. Basically it creates more questions than answers about the climate debate.
 
Last edited:
as this is an aviation website, how much does aviation really contribute to climate change - percentage -wise? The industy appears to me to be subject to a disproportionate amount of attention from the campaigners/activists.
How much does aviation contribute to climate change?

I have no doubt the climate is changing and we are polluting the planet.

As you know, I have a big problem with the theory that we are controlling the planet's climate through co2 emissions. I would thoroughly expect deforestation and excessive urbanisation to play a part in potentially altering the climate. It is widely accepted that the temperature in towns and cities is 1-2 degrees above that seen in rural areas through heat emitted from buildings. (Also where most of the weather stations are)

Well the official answer to your question is 2% globally, bear in mind CO2 only accounts for 0.04% of atmospheric gasses. It's a small amount in comparison with other forms of transport and electricity production. The official figures suggest cement for example accounts for double that of aviation emissions.

The climate today

The wind has been dire over the last few weeks, partly to do with the polar vortex ramping up the Atlantic jet stream. Some weather commentators are saying its behaving more like it does in January than almost March.
 
Top Bottom