Global Warming or Global Cooling?

  • Admin
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:
co2 levels were significantly higher millions of years ago during the Jurassic period and in a period when there was an abundance of life on Earth
O2 levels were also significantly higher at around 35% compared to today's 21%. That is why there were giant centipedes and dragon flies the size of sea gulls. These couldn't exist today as they wouldn't be able to get enough O2 into their tissues.
It's important not to look at just one aspect of the climate change equation, but to realise that it is a complex system in constant flux and a change in any one factor will have an effect on the others.

Kevin
 
So with UK aviation traffic levels down by 75% in 2020 (with a similar picture around the world), global carbon emissions from all sources fell by just 6.4%, with aviation seeing the largest percentage decrease (down 48%).

It would suggest even a massive scaling back of aviation wouldn't have that much of an impact on climate change, and certainly when weighed up against the massive economic harm that would do, surely can't be worth it? Likewise even with the expected growth in aviation, coupled with measures to reduce emissions (new tech, sustainable fuels, ATC improvements, etc), it would be possible to offset that growth by slightly larger cuts in other sectors?

Would be interested to see what the green movements view on that is...obviously they still think we should all stop flying, but I wonder how would they respond to those facts.

 
So with UK aviation traffic levels down by 75% in 2020 (with a similar picture around the world), global carbon emissions from all sources fell by just 6.4%, with aviation seeing the largest percentage decrease (down 48%).

It would suggest even a massive scaling back of aviation wouldn't have that much of an impact on climate change, and certainly when weighed up against the massive economic harm that would do, surely can't be worth it? Likewise even with the expected growth in aviation, coupled with measures to reduce emissions (new tech, sustainable fuels, ATC improvements, etc), it would be possible to offset that growth by slightly larger cuts in other sectors?

Would be interested to see what the green movements view on that is...obviously they still think we should all stop flying, but I wonder how would they respond to those facts.

Only a global economic crash on a scale unimaginable to our modern civilisation would come anywhere close to reducing carbon emissions to the extent climate scientists claim we need to achieve. Arguably, the social and psychical price of that would be far greater to humanity than climate change itself, which is still only a hypothesis. No climate scientist can define what could (or even should) be considered as natural variability.
 
Last edited:
A short term look at things as planetary mechanics are notoriously slower than activists would like. Other emissions need to be reduced though I doubt the switch to electric vehicles will help as much as suggested until electricity storage solutions are in place. Carbon Dioxide emissions from the 19th century are, we are told, still in the atmosphere and will dissipate at it's own pace. Solutions exist but are tremendously expensive and needs State funding as private business cannot fund such things alone.

I would like a network of charging points linked to local mini nuclear reactors linked to homes to provide domestic energy needs. This can allow decommissioning of domestic boilers and the need for Gas. This is clearly new infrastructure that has to be designed and tested and installed, something that will take as long as the current set up needed.
 
Best crack on with colonizing Mars! Space exploration is too slow!
If only it were so simple. I don't believe we have the technology or knowledge to even contemplate such a project. And as for the cost, that would be astronomical (pardon the pun!).
It is believed that Mars lost it's magnetic field billions of years ago, which resulted in the loss of most of it's atmosphere, not to mention the loss of protection from solar radiation (the Aurora borealis ((Northern Lights)) and Aurora Australis ((Southern Lights)) are examples of the Earths magnetic field deflecting solar radiation). So the first step in terraforming Mars, would be to recreate Mars' magnetic field. I'm no expert, but have no idea how we would go about that.
Even if we could achieve such an amazing feat, the next objective would be to create an atmosphere suitable for sustaining Earth based lifeforms, before we could send Earth based lifeforms to Mars. How would we keep the atmosphere in balance until we could deliver said lifeforms that are needed to keep the atmosphere in balance? Where do we get the trillions upon trillions of tons of gases to do this?
Then, there is temperature. Mars is significantly further from the Sun than is Earth. Therefore, it receives less heat than does Earth. One possible way around this would be to increase CO2 content to give a 'global warming' effect. But this would be at the expense of destabilising the atmosphere. Over enough time, it's possible that life could adjust to this, however it can't happen overnight.
But, before we try and embark upon any of this, we must determine that Mars is sterile. I know that Humankind has been responsible for the extinction of many species on Earth. We must stop this happening again on Earth and never let it happen on another planet. What if part way through terraforming we discover Martian lifeforms that are totally different in their biochemistry from those on Erath (example they use 'D' and not 'L' Amino Acids. Amino Acids, like many chemicals can be 'stereoisomers'. This can be easily explained as 'handedness'. You have a right and left hand, but they are mirror images of each other and cannot be overlaid on each other in the same orientation. The same applies to many chemicals). Life on Earth uses 'L' Amino Acids, which are used in the production of Peptides and those go on to make Proteins. If we were to encounter lifeforms with Amino Acids constructed from the 'D' form and tried to eat them, we wouldn't be able to digest them. They simply wouldn't fit our enzymes that are evolved to deal with the 'L' form.
Basically, by discovering a lifeform using the 'D' form of Amino Acids, we would have discovered life so unique from that we have on Earth. To do anything that might cause extinction for that life would be the worst act imaginable. But, even if Martian lifeforms were discovered and found to have links to Earth based life, they would be so different via evolution that they would also have to be protected.
In conclusion, instead of trying to make somewhere uninhabitable 'habitable', lets look after the habitable planet that we already have.

Sorry that's a bit long, but as some of you know I am a Scientist. I can't imagine anything more astounding than the discovery of lifeforms (even if single celled ones) on another planet. The study of comparative biochemistry with life on Earth would be so unbelievably exciting.

Kevin
 
Last edited:
If only it were so simple. I don't believe we have the technology or knowledge to even contemplate such a project. And as for the cost, that would be astronomical (pardon the pun!).
It is believed that Mars lost it's magnetic field billions of years ago, which resulted in the loss of most of it's atmosphere, not to mention the loss of protection from solar radiation (the Aurora borealis ((Northern Lights)) and Aurora Australis ((Southern Lights)) are examples of the Earths magnetic field deflecting solar radiation). So the first step in terraforming Mars, would be to recreate Mars' magnetic field. I'm no expert, but have no idea how we would go about that.
Even if we could achieve such an amazing feat, the next objective would be to create an atmosphere suitable for sustaining Earth based lifeforms, before we could send Earth based lifeforms to Mars. How would we keep the atmosphere in balance until we could deliver said lifeforms that are needed to keep the atmosphere in balance? Where do we get the trillions upon trillions of tons of gases to do this?
Then, there is temperature. Mars is significantly further from the Sun than is Earth. Therefore, it receives less heat than does Earth. One possible way around this would be to increase CO2 content to give a 'global warming' effect. But this would be at the expense of destabilising the atmosphere. Over enough time, it's possible that life could adjust to this, however it can't happen overnight.
But, before we try and embark upon any of this, we must determine that Mars is sterile. I know that Humankind has been responsible for the extinction of many species on Earth. We must stop this happening again on Earth and never let it happen on another planet. What if part way through terraforming we discover Martian lifeforms that are totally different in their biochemistry from those on Erath (example they use 'D' and not 'L' Amino Acids. Amino Acids, like many chemicals can be 'stereoisomers'. This can be easily explained as 'handedness'. You have a right and left hand, but they are mirror images of each other and cannot be overlaid on each other in the same orientation. The same applies to many chemicals). Life on Earth uses 'L' Amino Acids, which are used in the production of Peptides and those go on to make Proteins. If we were to encounter lifeforms with Amino Acids constructed from the 'D' form and tried to eat them, we wouldn't be able to digest them. They simply wouldn't fit our enzymes that are evolved to deal with the 'L' form.
Basically, by discovering a lifeform using the 'D' form of Amino Acids, we would have discovered life so unique from that we have on Earth. To do anything that might cause extinction for that life would be the worst act imaginable. But, even if Martian lifeforms were discovered and found to have links to Earth based life, they would be so different via evolution that they would also have to be protected.
In conclusion, instead of trying to make somewhere uninhabitable 'habitable', lets look after the habitable planet that we already have.

Sorry that's a bit long, but as some of you know I am a Scientist. I can't imagine anything more astounding than the discovery of lifeforms (even if single celled ones) on another planet. The study of comparative biochemistry with life on Earth would be so unbelievably exciting.

Kevin

Your premise assumes that to colonise Mars (or any other planet) we would have to "adapt" the planet to us. Why would we do that when we don't even do that on our own planet?

From suburban England, to the Himalayas to the Amazon rainforest, we adapt our buildings and our lives to suit the surroundings. Why would Mars have to be any different?

Far simpler than terraforming Mars would be for humans to live in large domes which would provide a breathable atmosphere and protection from radiation. Still challenging and very expensive, but certainly doable with our current technology level.

Elon Musk seems to have set his sights on establishing a permanent human presence on Mars, and I certainly believe that will happen if not towards the end of this decade then in the next.
 
Where is Gene Roddenberry when needed? We in Britain have built the Eden project, have Kew Gardens and the seed bank, the guys at NASA have the technology and Mr. Musk the cash or Bitcoin, it simply ( yes, that word ) requires the will and a plan of action Kennedy style. I shall be dead before a solution is acted upon if we wait for the 'WAIT AND SEE' brigades to cast continuing doubt over costs whilst the Earth begins to revert to pre civilisation when it got along without humanity. I understand ICELAND is beginning a new period of volcanic activity above the norm with potentially an eruption that could affect the climate and perhaps that would concentrate minds in high office!
 
Last edited:
Some years ago, there was an experiment in Arizona called Biosphere 2 which I was lucky enough to visit. It consisted of vast glass covered areas and were divided into regions representing the different climatic areas of Earth such as rain forest, temperate, tropical etc as well as having it's own 'ocean'. Several scientists were sealed into the building and were supposed to remain for 2 years. The whole thing was meant to be self sustaining and require no provisions from outside. It failed!
If you are wondering what Biosphere 1 is, you're living on it!
I wouldn't really class living under domes as 'colonising' a planet any more than I would think of a dome under the sea as 'colonising' the oceans.

Kevin
 
I am sure there are superior beings living on planets undiscovered or hidden from Earthlings and they should protect themselves from lifeforms that disrespect all they do not understand. Mars is presented to us as a dead planet but we have just arrived and are disturbing it. If humans get there I fear problems unimaginable.
 
The way humans have trashed The Earth, the last thing Mars or any other planets needs is us to set up camp there. We should be cleaning up our own backyard first and foremostly .

Whilst on one footing we are not, on another we are.

They are building an African Green wall which is contributing towards combating climate change. You can read about it here https://www.greatgreenwall.org/about-great-green-wall. The plan is to stop the southward trend of the Saharan desert and it seems to be working. If you watch David Attenborough's programme (think it's BBC) it's already having a very positive impact on the local communities.
 
Whilst on one footing we are not, on another we are.

They are building an African Green wall which is contributing towards combating climate change. You can read about it here https://www.greatgreenwall.org/about-great-green-wall. The plan is to stop the southward trend of the Saharan desert and it seems to be working. If you watch David Attenborough's programme (think it's BBC) it's already having a very positive impact on the local communities.
The Chinese have been very successful in reclaiming desert land.

 
Its a step in the right direction. Hopefully help with species losses in Africa. Nearer to home desertification is of increasing concerns in Portugal and Spain.
Indeed it has and like desertification, the problem has usually been down to deforestation or inefficient farming not the effects of "climate change".
 
Top Bottom
  AdBlock Detected
Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks some useful and important features of our website. For the best possible site experience please take a moment to disable your AdBlocker.