Winter is Coming – Super Grand Solar Minimum

Professor Valentina Zharkova gave a presentation of her Climate and the Solar Magnetic Field hypothesis at the Global Warming Policy Foundation in October, 2018.

Zharkova models solar sunspot and magnetic activity. Her models have run at a 93% accuracy and her findings suggest a Super Grand Solar Minimum could begin in 2020.

A Super Grand Solar Minimum would have four magnetic fields out of phase. There was about 40-60 years of cold weather 350 years ago. This was a Maunder Minimum of lower solar activity. The historical cold weather had two magnetic fields out of phase.

Zharkova is predicting a cooling effect that is 2.5 to 4 times larger than the Maunder minimum. Zharkova’s analysis shows an 8 watts per square meter decrease in TSI (Total Solar Irradiance). A 2015 Nature study looked at 2 watts per square meter decrease causing a 0.13-degree celsius effect. A four times larger effect would be 0.5-degree celsius.

Zharkova believes the warming models are including the warming effect of increased solar activity. If she is correct there would be cooling and the warming models would be wrong.

Michael J. I. Brown of Monash University criticizes the solar activity argument.

Nature – Regional climate impacts of a possible future grand solar minimum

Numerous studies have identified links between past climate and solar variability. During the Maunder Minimum (1645-1715), very few sunspots were seen despite regular observations. If the past relationships between TSI and ultraviolet irradiance and sunspots are the same as are observed for modern solar variability, then a decline in both TSI and ultraviolet for this period can be assumed. The Maunder Minimum coincided with more severe winters in the UK and continental Europe and many reconstructions suggest atmospheric conditions were broadly comparable with the regional effects on European atmospheric circulation found here. Some modeling studies also support the idea that similar regional cooling and circulation changes occurred during this period.

127 thoughts on “Winter is Coming – Super Grand Solar Minimum”

  1. The problem with your argument:
    In the last 60 years, CO2 concentrations have risen by 30%.
    In that same 60 years, the average rate at which CO2 is being added to the atmosphere has almost tripled.
    How about you reconsider your argument, this time bringing TIME into the equation.

  2. So, based on scientific characteristics of CO2 in the atmosphere, there is little backing for the global warming hype that is being spun up by the press, MS media, and political groups for apparently self-serving reasons.

  3. Please show where Zharkova says there will be 4 magnetic fields out of phase. I can only find her referring to 2 just under the sun’s surface. Nor can I find her claiming this will be more intense than the Maunder minimum. She has claimed the opposite and also said she is frustrated that she’s often misquoted, including assertions about intensity of the GSM.

  4. Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo where is the global warming that they promised me

  5. Fortunately the different generations that still inhabiting the Earth will be able to witness these events as humans trying to survive the untold consequences that cooler weather might bring to humanity ..time to end old wars and start to get ready for a very cold beginning..

  6. The international pretender-lenders want to convert the environment into financial instruments so that they can have something to seize if countries cannot repay the money they pretend to lend to them. If they acquire the environmental assets then they know that wilderness does not produce much money. Therefore they are using a stick and carrot. The stick is CO2 pollution penalties and the carrot is cheaper ethical shares that will offset the penalties. The public are induced to buy back their environment with conventional money.

    Emissions are not responsible for global warming. It’s the sun. The pretender-lender-fraudsters are desperate to prevent this knowledge until the world is locked into their fraud.

  7. Why don’t we control our leaps of emotion and let the science inform us, in whatever direction it takes us?

  8. Irony: Pushing for increased reliance on solar (“renewable”, like solar panels don’t need maintenance nor have a lifespan) energy, at the moment that solar output is expected to drop significantly. Let’s use this reprieve to embrace nuclear and thorium-sodium salt reactors, and continue to research and refine fusion reactors…

  9. Jean Baptiste
    when the Maunder min took place the co2 levels where about 280 ppm, as a saturation molecule working logarithmicly it’s already quite finished as a green house gas. So the extra 120 ppm has almost no increase in warming. But by this time the Ipcc will be having an almost impossible task of explaining and justifying everything they say or do because co2 levels will continue to rise for about another 200 years. At the same time the global temperature will decrease, winters will be much colder and last longer and the summer’s will be shorter and wetter. Also plant life, Agriculture will no longer have the benefit of UV radiance which kills bacteria and microbes that attack agriculture wheat, barley, potatoes etc etc. The Ipcc will be Over they will no longer be able to claim that co2 is warming the planet and so the whole point of their existence will be strongly challenge.

  10. 0.5 degrees cooling doesn’t quite negate a minimum of1.5 degrees of warming (nothing logarithmic, simple arithmetic) also not reducing CO2 also has acidification of the ocean problem
    So a cooling effect of 0.5 degrees doesn’t take us quite out of the frying pan

  11. Yes, when they can no longer keep the real facts under cover they will certainly design a different narrative as long as the outcome is to capture the populations around the world.

  12. Absolutely right, and Arrhenius recognized that. 50% of its GHG effect is in the first 20 ppm and it declines exponentially after that. We are in the fifth half-life of that decline, so the next doubling – should we be so fortunate – will incease CO2’s GHG effect by about 1.4%, an effect likely lost in the other 8 major influences on climate.
    We might remember that the end-Ordovician (Hirnantian) Ice Age, 440 million years ago, began when CO2 was over 4,000 ppm and lasted little more than a million years. At the end of that time, with 85% of marine life extinct, when the frigid oceans had inhaled atmospheric CO2 to around 3,000 ppm, the globe suddenly began to warm up, getting back to the previous 22°C with astonishing speed. We don’t actually know why it cooled so fast and so far, or why it warmed so fast and so far. After all, that was the time of the Cool Young Sun. CO2 was clearly not in control.

  13. I watch Dr. Zharkov’s presentation several times. The masking by GWPF around 47:30 into the video was disturbing to say the least. I really would like to examine her climate/temp projections firsthand. Has anyone seen that masked material? Can anyone provide a link to that? Thanks…John

  14. Is this some kind of joke? A half a degree c will cause a mini ice age? If the temperature were to drop by a minimum of 25c then were talking ice age not half a degree. Lol

  15. Scientific reasearch proves that most models can not be relied on to predict weather. Most models are skinny and barely smart enough to feed themselves so predicting the weather accuratly is way above their ability.

  16. CO2 has been as high as 7000 ppm in the past. They pump high concentration CO2 into greenhouses to aid growth. The planet has greened due to extra growth, but we are currently at LOW levels of CO2.

  17. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but its effect is logarithmic. If you double CO2, the temperature will rise, but if you double it again, it does not increase the same amount as before. For each increase, the increase has significantly less effect, until you reach the point that it takes a monumental increase to show a minuscule effect.

    THAT is what I’ve been telling these guys on NBF for years.

    It is proven scientific fact, repeatedly shown in experimentation in the lab.

    Yet the global warming fraud suckers claim it isn’t true simply because their news sources have never told them of this nor have they bothered to look up the science. TomPerkins is one of them.

  18. Ever recorded: in the last 120 years or so. That is fairly irrelevant in the history of earth. Temperatures will not rise 8 degrees Celsius, nobody takes that serious, the thermodynamics of CO2 are not supporting that, ask a physicist. No, we have not outstripped highest predictions. Warming over the last 100 years has been less than 1 degree Celsius. Not sure where you take your information from, but it is not scientifically accurate. I can’t take “hottest year” very seriously anyway, when the temp is 0.3 F higher without even giving standard deviation or any other statistical analysis

  19. CO2 danger? A. CO2 amounts to only 0.06% of the total atmospheric volume so that any increase is still VERY negligible relative to the total volume, and B. the vast oceans absorb CO2 gas when it reaches a certain level to maintain natural equilibrium with the atmospheric gases following laws of chemistry and physics so that the level CO2 can never exceed a basic threshold. Those factors alone make a threat from CO2 completely moot.

  20. Please, understand this to be true. Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but its effect is logarithmic. If you double CO2, the temperature will rise, but if you double it again, it does not increase the same amount as before. For each increase, the increase has significantly less effect, until you reach the point that it takes a monumental increase to show a minuscule effect. That means there is an upper limit to the greenhouse effects of CO2. At the same time, the increase in CO2 has a dramatic effect on plant growth. The increase in CO2 over the last 30 years is responsible for the greening of the planet so as to be noticeable from satellites. CO2 is not the bogey man. it is the breath of life for plants.

  21. Actually, we are nowhere near the optimal CO2 concentration for healthy plant growth. The CO2 concentration for plants right now is about like you trying to breathe at 20,000 feet. Yeah, you can do it, but it’s not healthy. Optimal CO2 concentration for plant life is some where in the neighborhood of 1200 PPM. That is about what most greenhouses run their CO2 levels at. That is how you get all of those beautiful hothouse flowers that, no matter how hard you try, you just can’t grow.
    You may not understand CO2 and water. As water heats up, it releases CO2, as water cools, it sequesters more CO2. Think of your soda pop. If you keep your pop cold, it keeps it fizz longer. If it warms up, it goes flat in a real hurry. With the coming cooler temperatures we will likely see a levelling of CO2 as the oceans release less CO2, and may even see a decline in CO2. The actual amount of CO2 contributed by humans is really quite minuscule by comparison with the total atmosphere. Remember, every insect, fish, amphibian, reptile, mammal – every creature that breathes oxygen – is releasing CO2 into the air, and when they die, they decay, still releasing more CO2. By far and away the most active (and abundant) “greenhouse gas” is water vapor.

  22. Yeah, you don’t use oxygen to breathe either, you just use it to grow and reproduce. Your comment shows an utter lack of understanding of fundamental biology.

  23. Moron, I made no fuckup. You did, in presuming you knew what I was replying to when I made the reply. It’s just one of the many ways you show you are stupid.

  24. Apparently Professor Zharkova didn’t get the memo that climate change has been conclusively determined to be 100% due to man made CO2 and further climate research that might conflict with that conclusion, is both unwarranted and dangerous. We can only conclude that she wants a global catastrophe of epic proportions that will destroy virtually all life on Earth.

  25. Cooling is not a good thing; although environmentalists like the idea of a drastic drop in population. I think famine and shorter growing seasons is a bad thing.

  26. Moron, I was replying to someone specifically in a Vuukle thread at the time I replied. NBF moving to SpotChat removed the threading structure. I know you are slow, try to keep up and notice reality.

  27. Considering how you didn’t identify anyone specifically, it was perfectly normal for one to assume you were referring to the article.

    Not my fault you have crappy writing skills.

  28. “but has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal, so has not been subject to normal scientific scrutiny.”

    Yes it has. Just not the ones that guard the Great Fraud That Is Global Warming.

    Either way, unlike Global Warming Fraud, this theory will be falsifiable and pretty soon. Global Warming Fraud ‘science’ never is…gasp! wonder why?

  29. Proof is already there. See, unlike bogus Grant Whoring Global Warming Fraud BS posing as ‘science’, REAL science has already shown global temps dropping over the next two years.

    And this theory, unlike Global Warming Fraud, will be tested in actuality. We’ll know by 2021 by the latest whether or not this is true. See, this theory is falsifiable while Global Warming Fraud is not.

  30. …sorry, but the Global Warming Fraudsters will go down completely to Non-Credibility Hell such that even ancillary issues like ocean acidification will be harmed by the Fall.

    Such is the price that we will all pay from politicized Establishment Science getting its much deserved due.

  31. No, over the last several decades, global climate temperatures as measured have been flat. The globe is not warming–the AGW fraudsters are adjusting their measurements until they agree with their theory.

  32. Don’t take this the wrong way, but you’re not important enough to me to keep official records of. All I have are faint memories of those discussions, and that we’ve replied to each other’s comments here and there: our views usually align on most things. I just know I don’t have many discussions with people on here which span days, but over the course of a few years there are a few that ring a bell: you, Warren, and Phaeton (who I have not seen for quite some time) off the top of my head.

  33. The presentation referred to has been given several times, but has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal, so has not been subject to normal scientific scrutiny. Even so, in her abstracts she does not make any claim on predicted mean global temperatures, just the the effect of the super grand solar minimum on mean global temperatures. Here’s the rub: dozens of climate models predict global mean temperature to rise by between 2 and 8 degrees C in the next 100 years. (so far we’ve outstripped even the highest predictions). If Zharkova’s predictions are 100% accurate, they would diminish that increase by only 0.5 degrees. In other words, the Super Grand Solar Minimum will result in global mean temperatures increasing 1.5 to 7.5 degrees. This solar event will not reverse climate change or even help moderate it by much.

    An example of this is another prediction that comes from the proceedings of the meeting she spoke at (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018EGUGA..20.8066Z): that a solar grand MAXIMUM modern warm period lasted from 1990 through 2015, peaking in about 2003. If climate change was driven entirely by these solar cycles, we would have been cooling off since 2003. Instead 9 of the hottest years ever recorded were observed in the last 10 years. The globe is still heating up, despite the solar cycle cooling down.

  34. I would like to say I had no problem following this … but models-on-models-on-models … yikes. So I suggest a another less academic work: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/28/essay-solar-cycle-wave-frequency-linked-to-jet-stream-changes/. It references Dr Zharkova’s work. It also points to an interesting link between falling-solar-output -> compressing atmosphere -> jet stream taking unusually twisted paths (which we really have seen in 2018 and with the so called polar vortex). An irony would be if this masked CO2 heating for 30-40 years, so we pump a lot more CO2 into the atmosphere and when the sun returned to normal we really get roasted. My vote is that climate changes is a complex mix of tiny orbital fluctuations, short and long solar cycles and atmospheric composition. The only real solution is to adapt, as humans always have.

  35. “V8 engines don’t change the Earth’s climate; the Sun does.” This is a false dichotomy. It could be that V8 engines and the Sun both change the Earth’s climate.

  36. Tom, we’ve had several discussions spanning multiple days. You mean to tell me you’ve forgotten them all? 🙁

  37. Exactly! We will be able to gather data on these two opposing forces that we have not been able to do before. This information might allow us to quantify the effects of both forces, or lack of. The synergy between Maunder Minimums and CO2 in the atmosphere will hopefully give us almost binocular vision on this issue.

  38. Why would I “hedge my bets”? I am not a climate analyst, and have no dog in this hunt. You also seem to be confused as to the difference between weather and climate, which seems to be normal for deniers.

    “Why would anybody believe you about CO2???” What are you talking about? I made no assertions as to what are the primary factors causing climate change. What I did say is that we can get some good data to refine models and get a better understanding about climate change. Climate change is always happening no matter what the cause. You seem to be passionately ill informed and confusing me with the IPCC.

  39. It sounds like your hedging your bets. Why do you think people should trust you to manage anything after being so completely wrong on this for 30 years? 20 years ago, I was told we would be having milder Winters in Michigan. At the current rate, my gas usage for November will be the highest it has ever been since I bought the house 27 years ago. That includes significant improvements in energy efficiency updates. This shouldn’t be happening in ANY warming scenarios. You guys are wrong. Why would anybody believe you about CO2???

  40. It’s impossible to know for sure but this sound like it might not be a bad thing if it buys us time to get our CO2 output in order, develop cheap renewable energy, move substantial resource gathering to asteroids, and so on. If our technology has gotten us into a global climate change crisis, then it seems to me that only technology can get us out (and that takes time).

    Hopes based on other potential “solutions,”including dropping the human race back to a billion or less subsistence farmers, seem extremely unlikely to solve anything at this point, even were they desirable.

  41. Finally, we will get a chance to test climate theory. If Dr. Zharkova is correct and the CO2 theory of global warming is wrong, things will chill significantly. If our current understanding of climate modeling is correct, Dr. Zharkova’s theory will mean little to no change because of the CO2 load trapping heat. We will also have some idea based on the scale of the change. This is all good data and will help make our climate modeling and understanding more reliable. We need to make sure we expend the effort to capture as much data as we can, and hopefully put the debate about global warming to bed once and for all.

    Of course, even if the CO2 theory of climate change is wrong, we will still need to cut CO2 emissions or find a way to neutralize it. Nobody is arguing that ocean acidification is not real, that is high school chemistry.

  42. The biggest problems will be seen in the more densely populated areas where people will not be prepared to grow their own food. When global food production gets cut, it will be necessary to have a consistent, safe source. A large city is not nearly the optimal place for that.
    The change in temperature is a dynamic, atmospheric process. It’s already begun. The flooding seen now in desert countries is just one example. At least 35 people have been killed due to flash floods in Saudi Arabia within the last month. youtube.com/watch?v=eghw3PkqLXE
    Those rains did not fall where they normally do…where drought is killing crops. The shift in weather patterns due to more widely fluctuating polar jet streams means stresses on agriculture will not be only caused by cold. Floods and droughts in areas where food production has enjoyed relative stability will erase many arable regions. The last time a grand solar minimum occurred, a greater % of the population had an agrarian lifestyle so were more prepared for it just in their lifestyle alone. They were a hardier people in general. Still, the global population was reduced by 25%. Now there are 9 times more people on the planet and “just in time delivery” is the craze. We’ve been living under script A for a while. We’ve just been handed another script. Learn it.

  43. Looks like a couple new accounts were created to specifically disagree with you. How interesting…

  44. I’ve confused, can you explain where I am wrong? 400 year super minimum means massive loss of human life via reduced growing seasons. If we’ve double the CO2 since the last mini ice age then we have plants growing twice as fast in the reduced growing periods. If we have plants growing twice as fast then less people will die over the next few hundred years.

  45. Ah, no. 1 degree celsius is about 1.8 fahrenheit. You’re getting confused by the freeze point, which is logically set at 0 in celsius and 32 in F.

  46. While it is true that a temperature of 1C = 33F, the 1 to 1 scaling is different. A change of 1F = 0.55C, and a change of 1C = 1.8F.

  47. It is stated here that this is projected to be a 0.5 degrees difference at most. If true this will slightly retard the projected effects of the increased CO2 load. However, since it is only predicted to last about 50 years it means we still need to be reducing the amount of CO2 that we emit.

  48. If she is right then all that extra CO2 will be directly responsible for a reduction in the overall loss of human life. Plants will be growing at least twice as fast as the last ice age.

  49. Once Upon a Time, in a land where people read before jumping to conclusions….

    Figure 1 shows upper (EXPT-B) and lower (EXPT-A) bounds for changes in UV irradiance relative to the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI), which should correlate based on historical data;

    Figure 2 shows a 0.13 C cooling effect for EXPT-B relative to the “control” model (CTRL-8.5) on the annual global mean near-surface temperature for 2050 – 2099, which offsets the global warming trend by about 2 years and is consistent with other published works;

    Figure 3b/3f shows that 0.13 C cooling trend;

    Figure 4 manifests that cooling trend in an increased number of “frost days” in winter months;

    Figure 5 displays that there will still be higher surface temperatures for Europe with at best a 1 C drop albeit a total increase of 6 or 7 C by 2080;

    Figure 6 shows that precipitation will decrease for northern hemisphere areas and increase for southern hemisphere areas;

    Figure 7 made me snort and realize the only takeaway from it was there was an upward trend in surface temps;

    Bottom line: even an apparent Maunder Minimum+ will only give us 2 years delay on surface temp increases. Really, a lot of people could have just read the last paragraph instead of conforming with what they want the article to be: “our results therefore suggest that uncertainties in natural forcing, in this case both the uncertainty in future solar output and uncertainty in spectral solar irradiance, should be taken into account alongside uncertainties in emissions in future climate forcing scenarios.”

    Brian, methinks you mislabeled this one.

  50. Buy more blankets? Might work. More parka-time for us. 😉 Maybe breed crops to withstand cold and shorter daylights. I don’t know global answers. I wonder who really does. Pollute less is good. Conserve is good. Yes, this planet keeps changing. If only the people on both sides would give help rather than catastrophe predictions of hot or cold or change. But then, who notices us when we quietly do good instead of shouting downs and riots?

  51. OMG now she is saying that the “scientists are not measuring carbon in the atmosphere but instead are measuring moisture in the air”. There is no area of science that she does not seem to know. Then she gives specific temperature examples of specific locations as an example to support her conclusions instead of using the the world temperatures. A ridiculous view of global temperatures. Then she denies carbon is human based and that carbon (CO2) is increasing in the world. Then she claims that the emissions from the smoke stacks are only vapor. Now she is claiming the temperature are driven from the rational cycle of the earth. She is claiming that the northern hemisphere will be colder in winter which I can testify from my view and friends in other locations and NASA is BS. So you take one persons conclusions and use that to support your own solidified position on Global Warming. There is not one recognized scientific organization IN THE WORLD that agrees with your denier position. Please list just one and stop it with the quacks

  52. ” BTW what is happening with the acidification of the oceans? ” <– Nothing unusual. The corals have bleached before, they will again.

    ” or the melting of the Alaskan glaciers. ” <– Some are melting, some are growing.

    The planet changes, get over it.

  53. No, they cite their sources. Your bald lies will fail.

    tinyurl com/y9mog2jv

    tinyurl com/ybyqmp8u

    tinyurl com/y7fkaz5g

    Among others.

  54. Yes, who are these mental mopeds that are attempting to make climate predictions based on scientific modeling? Do they really think we will give up our internal combustion engines and love for coal? By the way, everyone responding to these posts should have their countries of origin posted, so we can determine the motivation of the poster.

  55. BTW Real Climate Science is a disinformation site. You can tell when the site posts graphs without any source. They do not list source of funding and there are no lists of scientists who work for the site. Just take some crayons and draw some graphs and the uninformed will be to ignorant to understand what is fake data.

  56. Tin foil hat much?? What taxes?? What freedoms are lost. OHH OHH I forgot the great Republican you cannot use incandescent bulbs and use 8 times more energy and now spend 4 times as much on the incandescent bulbs that need to replace one LED bulb.

    BTW what is happening with the acidification of the oceans? That’s not happening either. Neither is the bleaching of the barrier reefs or the melting of the Alaskan glaciers. Must be all in the imaginations of the Alaskans and the Australians.

  57. Use google, you can find all her published peer-reviewed papers, including the most recent one on this topic. Also including answers to questions from non-reviewers aka scientists.

  58. So who agrees with her conclusions and where are the peer reviewed papers? I hope she is right cause that will give the world time to implement a nuclear solution to Global Warming but I doubt it.

  59. The models will be “corrected” to now predict the Anthropogenic Global Cooling and continue demanding more taxes and less freedom.

  60. And because the whole of the “evidence” for AGW is created by baseless adjustments to the measurements:

    tinyurl com/ybluc3cu

    And the AGW fraudsters have no idea how the climate works with an detail on a scale that could predict AGW:

    tinyurl com/y9pwmrrd

    It’s going to be a 1degF roughly of actual cooling. Ice Fairs on the Thames.

  61. Don’t take this the wrong way, but you’re not important enough to me to keep official records of. All I have are faint memories of those discussions, and that we’ve replied to each other’s comments here and there: our views usually align on most things. I just know I don’t have many discussions with people on here which span days, but over the course of a few years there are a few that ring a bell: you, Warren, and Phaeton (who I have not seen for quite some time) off the top of my head.

  62. The presentation referred to has been given several times, but has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal, so has not been subject to normal scientific scrutiny. Even so, in her abstracts she does not make any claim on predicted mean global temperatures, just the the effect of the super grand solar minimum on mean global temperatures. Here’s the rub: dozens of climate models predict global mean temperature to rise by between 2 and 8 degrees C in the next 100 years. (so far we’ve outstripped even the highest predictions). If Zharkova’s predictions are 100% accurate, they would diminish that increase by only 0.5 degrees. In other words, the Super Grand Solar Minimum will result in global mean temperatures increasing 1.5 to 7.5 degrees. This solar event will not reverse climate change or even help moderate it by much.

    An example of this is another prediction that comes from the proceedings of the meeting she spoke at (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018EGUGA..20.8066Z): that a solar grand MAXIMUM modern warm period lasted from 1990 through 2015, peaking in about 2003. If climate change was driven entirely by these solar cycles, we would have been cooling off since 2003. Instead 9 of the hottest years ever recorded were observed in the last 10 years. The globe is still heating up, despite the solar cycle cooling down.

  63. I would like to say I had no problem following this … but models-on-models-on-models … yikes. So I suggest a another less academic work: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/28/essay-solar-cycle-wave-frequency-linked-to-jet-stream-changes/. It references Dr Zharkova’s work. It also points to an interesting link between falling-solar-output -> compressing atmosphere -> jet stream taking unusually twisted paths (which we really have seen in 2018 and with the so called polar vortex). An irony would be if this masked CO2 heating for 30-40 years, so we pump a lot more CO2 into the atmosphere and when the sun returned to normal we really get roasted. My vote is that climate changes is a complex mix of tiny orbital fluctuations, short and long solar cycles and atmospheric composition. The only real solution is to adapt, as humans always have.

  64. “V8 engines don’t change the Earth’s climate; the Sun does.” This is a false dichotomy. It could be that V8 engines and the Sun both change the Earth’s climate.

  65. Exactly! We will be able to gather data on these two opposing forces that we have not been able to do before. This information might allow us to quantify the effects of both forces, or lack of. The synergy between Maunder Minimums and CO2 in the atmosphere will hopefully give us almost binocular vision on this issue.

  66. Why would I “hedge my bets”? I am not a climate analyst, and have no dog in this hunt. You also seem to be confused as to the difference between weather and climate, which seems to be normal for deniers.

    “Why would anybody believe you about CO2???” What are you talking about? I made no assertions as to what are the primary factors causing climate change. What I did say is that we can get some good data to refine models and get a better understanding about climate change. Climate change is always happening no matter what the cause. You seem to be passionately ill informed and confusing me with the IPCC.

  67. It sounds like your hedging your bets. Why do you think people should trust you to manage anything after being so completely wrong on this for 30 years? 20 years ago, I was told we would be having milder Winters in Michigan. At the current rate, my gas usage for November will be the highest it has ever been since I bought the house 27 years ago. That includes significant improvements in energy efficiency updates. This shouldn’t be happening in ANY warming scenarios. You guys are wrong. Why would anybody believe you about CO2???

  68. It’s impossible to know for sure but this sound like it might not be a bad thing if it buys us time to get our CO2 output in order, develop cheap renewable energy, move substantial resource gathering to asteroids, and so on. If our technology has gotten us into a global climate change crisis, then it seems to me that only technology can get us out (and that takes time).

    Hopes based on other potential “solutions,”including dropping the human race back to a billion or less subsistence farmers, seem extremely unlikely to solve anything at this point, even were they desirable.

  69. Finally, we will get a chance to test climate theory. If Dr. Zharkova is correct and the CO2 theory of global warming is wrong, things will chill significantly. If our current understanding of climate modeling is correct, Dr. Zharkova’s theory will mean little to no change because of the CO2 load trapping heat. We will also have some idea based on the scale of the change. This is all good data and will help make our climate modeling and understanding more reliable. We need to make sure we expend the effort to capture as much data as we can, and hopefully put the debate about global warming to bed once and for all.

    Of course, even if the CO2 theory of climate change is wrong, we will still need to cut CO2 emissions or find a way to neutralize it. Nobody is arguing that ocean acidification is not real, that is high school chemistry.

  70. The biggest problems will be seen in the more densely populated areas where people will not be prepared to grow their own food. When global food production gets cut, it will be necessary to have a consistent, safe source. A large city is not nearly the optimal place for that.
    The change in temperature is a dynamic, atmospheric process. It’s already begun. The flooding seen now in desert countries is just one example. At least 35 people have been killed due to flash floods in Saudi Arabia within the last month. youtube.com/watch?v=eghw3PkqLXE
    Those rains did not fall where they normally do…where drought is killing crops. The shift in weather patterns due to more widely fluctuating polar jet streams means stresses on agriculture will not be only caused by cold. Floods and droughts in areas where food production has enjoyed relative stability will erase many arable regions. The last time a grand solar minimum occurred, a greater % of the population had an agrarian lifestyle so were more prepared for it just in their lifestyle alone. They were a hardier people in general. Still, the global population was reduced by 25%. Now there are 9 times more people on the planet and “just in time delivery” is the craze. We’ve been living under script A for a while. We’ve just been handed another script. Learn it.

  71. I’ve confused, can you explain where I am wrong? 400 year super minimum means massive loss of human life via reduced growing seasons. If we’ve double the CO2 since the last mini ice age then we have plants growing twice as fast in the reduced growing periods. If we have plants growing twice as fast then less people will die over the next few hundred years.

  72. It is stated here that this is projected to be a 0.5 degrees difference at most. If true this will slightly retard the projected effects of the increased CO2 load. However, since it is only predicted to last about 50 years it means we still need to be reducing the amount of CO2 that we emit.

  73. If she is right then all that extra CO2 will be directly responsible for a reduction in the overall loss of human life. Plants will be growing at least twice as fast as the last ice age.

  74. Once Upon a Time, in a land where people read before jumping to conclusions….

    Figure 1 shows upper (EXPT-B) and lower (EXPT-A) bounds for changes in UV irradiance relative to the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI), which should correlate based on historical data;

    Figure 2 shows a 0.13 C cooling effect for EXPT-B relative to the “control” model (CTRL-8.5) on the annual global mean near-surface temperature for 2050 – 2099, which offsets the global warming trend by about 2 years and is consistent with other published works;

    Figure 3b/3f shows that 0.13 C cooling trend;

    Figure 4 manifests that cooling trend in an increased number of “frost days” in winter months;

    Figure 5 displays that there will still be higher surface temperatures for Europe with at best a 1 C drop albeit a total increase of 6 or 7 C by 2080;

    Figure 6 shows that precipitation will decrease for northern hemisphere areas and increase for southern hemisphere areas;

    Figure 7 made me snort and realize the only takeaway from it was there was an upward trend in surface temps;

    Bottom line: even an apparent Maunder Minimum+ will only give us 2 years delay on surface temp increases. Really, a lot of people could have just read the last paragraph instead of conforming with what they want the article to be: “our results therefore suggest that uncertainties in natural forcing, in this case both the uncertainty in future solar output and uncertainty in spectral solar irradiance, should be taken into account alongside uncertainties in emissions in future climate forcing scenarios.”

    Brian, methinks you mislabeled this one.

  75. Buy more blankets? Might work. More parka-time for us. 😉 Maybe breed crops to withstand cold and shorter daylights. I don’t know global answers. I wonder who really does. Pollute less is good. Conserve is good. Yes, this planet keeps changing. If only the people on both sides would give help rather than catastrophe predictions of hot or cold or change. But then, who notices us when we quietly do good instead of shouting downs and riots?

  76. OMG now she is saying that the “scientists are not measuring carbon in the atmosphere but instead are measuring moisture in the air”. There is no area of science that she does not seem to know. Then she gives specific temperature examples of specific locations as an example to support her conclusions instead of using the the world temperatures. A ridiculous view of global temperatures. Then she denies carbon is human based and that carbon (CO2) is increasing in the world. Then she claims that the emissions from the smoke stacks are only vapor. Now she is claiming the temperature are driven from the rational cycle of the earth. She is claiming that the northern hemisphere will be colder in winter which I can testify from my view and friends in other locations and NASA is BS. So you take one persons conclusions and use that to support your own solidified position on Global Warming. There is not one recognized scientific organization IN THE WORLD that agrees with your denier position. Please list just one and stop it with the quacks

  77. ” BTW what is happening with the acidification of the oceans? ” <-- Nothing unusual. The corals have bleached before, they will again. " or the melting of the Alaskan glaciers. " <-- Some are melting, some are growing. The planet changes, get over it.

  78. Yes, who are these mental mopeds that are attempting to make climate predictions based on scientific modeling? Do they really think we will give up our internal combustion engines and love for coal? By the way, everyone responding to these posts should have their countries of origin posted, so we can determine the motivation of the poster.

  79. BTW Real Climate Science is a disinformation site. You can tell when the site posts graphs without any source. They do not list source of funding and there are no lists of scientists who work for the site. Just take some crayons and draw some graphs and the uninformed will be to ignorant to understand what is fake data.

  80. Tin foil hat much?? What taxes?? What freedoms are lost. OHH OHH I forgot the great Republican you cannot use incandescent bulbs and use 8 times more energy and now spend 4 times as much on the incandescent bulbs that need to replace one LED bulb.

    BTW what is happening with the acidification of the oceans? That’s not happening either. Neither is the bleaching of the barrier reefs or the melting of the Alaskan glaciers. Must be all in the imaginations of the Alaskans and the Australians.

  81. Use google, you can find all her published peer-reviewed papers, including the most recent one on this topic. Also including answers to questions from non-reviewers aka scientists.

  82. So who agrees with her conclusions and where are the peer reviewed papers? I hope she is right cause that will give the world time to implement a nuclear solution to Global Warming but I doubt it.

  83. And because the whole of the “evidence” for AGW is created by baseless adjustments to the measurements:

    tinyurl com/ybluc3cu

    And the AGW fraudsters have no idea how the climate works with an detail on a scale that could predict AGW:

    tinyurl com/y9pwmrrd

    It’s going to be a 1degF roughly of actual cooling. Ice Fairs on the Thames.

Comments are closed.