Scientist Predicts ‘Little Ice Age,’ Gets Icy Reception From Colleagues

“We can expect serious cooling.”
– Professor Cliff Ollier, University of Western Australia

A “mini ice age-like situation” is on the way.
– Shrinivas Aundhkar, director, Mahatma Gandhi Mission at the Centre for Astronomy and Space Technology

“Could have much greater impact than previous estimates.”
– Jorge Sanchez-Sesma, Mexican Institute of Water Technology

* * *

Scientist Predicts ‘Little Ice Age,’ Gets Icy Reception From Colleagues

By Michael Bastasch

Professor Valentina Zharkova at Northumbria University is being attacked by climate change proponents for publishing research suggesting there could be a 35-year period of low solar activity that could usher in an “ice age.” (I’ve posted previously about Professor Zharkova.)

Zharkova and her team of researchers released a study on sunspot modeling, finding that solar activity could fall to levels not seen since the so-called “Little Ice Age” of the 1600s. Zharkova’s conclusions may have huge implications for global temperature modeling, but her analysis is not accepted by some climate scientists.

“Some of them were welcoming and discussing. But some of them were quite — I would say — pushy,” she told The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) in an interview on her solar study.
In fact, Zharkova said some scientists even tried to have her research suppressed.

“They were trying to actually silence us,” she said. “Some of them contacted the Royal Astronomical Society, demanding, behind our back, that they withdraw our press release.”

Zharkova found that solar activity is driven by two magnetic waves from within the sun that can either dampen or amplify solar activity. Solar activity is believed to play a role in warming and cooling average global temperature.

Similar to the Maunder Minimum

Largest sunspot in years - 4 Nov 2011

Zharkova’s team incorporated solar data into predictive models and found that the sun is heading into a period of low solar activity similar to the Maunder Minimum of the late 1600s. During this time, scientists believe low solar activity contributed to cooler average global temperature.

“Whatever we do to the planet, if everything is done only by the sun, then the temperature should drop similar like it was in the Maunder Minimum,” she said. “At least in the Northern hemisphere, where this temperature is well protocoled and written. We didn’t have many measurements in the Southern hemisphere, we don’t know what will happen with that, but in the Northern hemisphere, we know it’s very well protocoled.”

“The rivers are frozen,” she added. “There are winters and no summers, and so on.”

The so-called “Little Ice Age” is a controversial topic among scientists. Some argue low solar activity contributed to cooler temperatures over Europe and North America, but others argue volcanic activity drove temperatures lower since the trend began before solar activity fell.

Climate scientists were quick to ask the U.K.’s Royal Astronomical Society to suppress Zharkova’s findings.

“The Royal Astronomical Society replied to them and CCed to us and said, ‘Look, this is the work by the scientists who we support, please discuss this with them,’” Zharkova told the GWPF.

“We had about 8 or 10 exchanges by email, when I tried to prove my point, and I’m saying, I’m willing to look at what you do, I’m willing to see how our results we produced and what the sun has explained to us,” she said. “So how this is transformed into climate we do not produce; we can only assume it should be. So we’re happy to work with you, and add to your data our results.

“So don’t take the sunspots which you get, we can give you our curve. Work with our curve. So they didn’t want to,” she said.
Zharkova isn’t the first to suggest a period of low solar activity is on the way that could cause a cooling trend. Solar activity was reportedly at a 200-year low in February.

Could have much greater impact than previous estimates

A July 2015 study by Jorge Sanchez-Sesma at the Mexican Institute of Water Technology found the oscillations in the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth could have a much bigger cooling impact on the climate than previous estimates by climate scientists.

Sanchez-Sesma examined solar cycle data going back 100,000 years and compared them to about 25,000 years of surface air temperature data in the Congo River Basin and found that “information from reconstructions and models indicates a potential continental tropical temperature cooling of around 0.5oC for the rest of the 21st century.”

A “mini ice age-like situation”

Shrinivas Aundhkar, director of India’s Mahatma Gandhi Mission at the Centre for Astronomy and Space Technology, said in 2015 that declining solar activity could mean a “mini ice age-like situation” is on the way.

“We can expect serious cooling”

In 2013, Professor Cliff Ollier at the University of Western Australia posited low solar activity could bring cool the planet.

“There is a very good correlation of sunspots and climate,” Ollier wrote. “Solar cycles provide a basis for prediction.”

“Solar Cycle 24 has started and we can expect serious cooling. Many think that political decisions about climate are based on scientific predictions but what politicians get are projections based on computer models,” he wrote.

Russian scientists argued in 2012 the world could expect the start of the another Little Ice Age starting in 2014.

Expect deep cooling

“After the maximum of solar cycle 24, from approximately 2014 we can expect the start of deep cooling with a Little Ice Age in 2055,” wrote Habibullo Abdussamatov of the Russian Academy of Science.

Reprinted by permission of Daily Caller:

Thanks to Craig Adkins and Laurel for this link

Dr Zharkova is a Professor in Mathematics at Northumbria University. She has a BSc/MSc in Applied Mathematics and Astronomy and a Ph.D. in Astrophysics.

28 thoughts on “Scientist Predicts ‘Little Ice Age,’ Gets Icy Reception From Colleagues”

  1. The studies seem to focus solely on sun spot activity …

    Wonder if consideration is given in any of the models to what difference solar energy incoming from coronal hole streams and/or solar surface filament releases might make.

    What if those energy inputs increase?

    Hmm …

    • Who knows Cam – certainly those who think the only control knob for global temps is CO2 have no idea.

      It is also a little dismissive to call Prof ZharaKova just a sun spot counter. She is a serious Astrophysicist. This GWPF video and interview gives the informed laymans’ view.

      • I agree, Dave, and I think she is also one of the scientists who discovered ‘sunquakes’. I think she knows what she’s talking about.

        • Solar sun spots seem to be on the decrease … still keep wondering, though, what the impact of increased coronal hole streams of energy will be for the planet … and life on the planet … if indeed those streams of energy may be on the increase.

          These streams of energy don’t seem to depend upon sun spots and solar sun spot activity; that energy, if indeed incoming, would seem to portend some kind of energy increase for the planet … i.e., some kind of global warming, as well, as a result (?); yet if that energy goes in via the poles … a warming of the planet … but from the inside out? In which case, would the layers of the atmosphere perhaps warm last? Yet, those as well, the layers of the atmosphere … warming eventually … none the less?

          In the meantime, warming from the inside out of the planet, if that does take place … i.e., as a result of solar energy streaming in over time from coronal hole streams … perhaps the heat increasing first at the equator and a midst the tropics … but as that heat heads north and south … and cycles … heralding ice melting at the poles, in due course (?) … more volcanic activity and earthquakes, as well (?) …

          If mass extinctions result, eventually … another part of the mix, that? Hmm …

    • Energy inputs could be transitory if coronal holes and filaments occur at all. Remember we are dealing with an over all reduction of solar activity. Then again I am not an astrophysicist.

    • Yes and where has Axial Precession even been mentioned? The Earth doesn’t spin perfectly and endlessly so. It wobbles, Earth isn’t Perfectly Round Either.Why do you think that your compass doesn’t point to True North? In the PNW it’s like 22° variation. N &S Hemispheres don’t always get the same amount of Solar Radiation (warmth) from yr to yr, century to century!

      • Australian/ Southern Hemisphere summers should be relatively hotter than the Northern Hemisphere, as the earth is closer to the sun during that part of our orbit.
        Conversely, Northern Hemisphere summers should be milder, and Southern Hemisphere winters colder, as the earth is further away from the sun in that part of the orbit

    • Yes and where has Axial Precession even been mentioned? The Earth doesn’t spin perfectly and endlessly so. It wobbles, Earth isn’t Perfectly Round Either.Why do you think that your compass doesn’t point to True North? In the PNW it’s like 22° variation. N &S Hemispheres don’t always get the same amount of Solar Radiation (warmth) from yr to yr, century to century! Axial Precession has been attributed to Ice Ages and Warming Periods which has caused the Sea Level to rise approx. 400′ or more in the last 10,000 years.!!

  2. Seems to me like real science. This is a testable theory that will be revealed as either right or wrong.

    If Richard Feynman were still around, he would approve.

    I ask myself every few weeks if I am a skeptic because of confirmation bias. And then I think of first principles, comparing the consensus view with my own skeptical position.

    Thomas Kuhn explains what seems to be a consensus mentality among academics as well as did Chalrles Mackay did for crowds of general public. Abraham Lincoln for the electorate, “You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, …”

    I don’t believe in conspiracy theories any more than did Kuhn. But as part of an M.S. program in Earth science, I opted for a course in the history of science, warts and all.

    The monumental blunder we call catastrophic anthropocentric global warming is not unusual in the history of science blunders, except for the cost of the public-sector and NGO finance that keeps it going and the waste of economic resources resulting from the policies it inspires.

    I am a skeptic both ways because I look for scientific arguments to support catastrophic anthropocentric global warming (CAGW)

    CAGW reminds me of a research project I once conducted when I fell into a mangrove swamp. The more you struggle to understand the claims, the more you get sucked in.

    I reached out a grabbed a mangrove branch and pulled myself out of the swamp.

    For CAGW, the problem is that so many branches of science study climate. Two that are neglected most are oceanography and astrophysics.

    In my opinion, these two branches of science will be the undoing of the present consensus paradigm.

    In the second edition of Climate, History and the Modern World, Hubert Lamb specifically warned of the danger of attributing human causes to natural climate fluctuations. His advice was to continue researching climate and to keep watch on the impacts of change, but not to attribute too much to the idea of the importance of human activity.

    Lamb wrote, “In fact, from about the beginning of this century up to 1940 a substantial climatic change was in progress, but it was in a direction which tended to make life easier and to reduce stresses for most activities and most people in most parts of the world. Average temperatures were rising, though without too many hot extremes, and they were rising most of all in the Arctic where the sea ice was receding. Europe enjoyed several decades of near-immunity from severe winters, and the variability of temperature from year to year was reduced. More rainfall was reaching the dry places in the interiors of the great continents (except in the Americas where the lee effect, or ‘rain-shadow’, of the Rocky Mountains and the Andes became more marked as the prevalence of westerly winds in middle latitudes increased).

    And the monsoons became more regular in India and west Africa. Planning on the climatic statistics of the preceding decades was in fact allowing wider safety margins for many activities than was apparent up to some time about 1950.”
    End of quote.

    H. H. Lamb, History and the Modern World Edition 2, Routledge, 1995

    The following paper confirmed Lamb’s remark by assessing how climate zones changed during the 20th century based on the Koppen classification System modified by Trewartha (KTC)..The relevance of the KTC system is that the temperature and precipitation criteria are based on plant ecology. This subsumes animal ecology because animals depend on plants.

    Belda, M., Holtanová, E., Halenka, T. and Kalvová, J., 2014. Climate classification revisited: from Köppen to Trewartha. Climate research, 59(1), pp.1-13.

    This study is probably the best to date in reconstructing the Koppen-Trewartha climate classification map using global gridded data. The maps constructed by the authors show the climate regions of the world (except Antarctica) for two periods, 1901-1931 and 1975-2005, based on CRU(UK) global temperature data interpolated to a 30 minute grid, average area about 2500 km2. Precipitation data was from a separate source.

    (About 50,000 grid cells cover 135 million km2, the land area of the Earth except Antarctica.)

    Between the two periods separated by 75 years, 8% of the cells changed climate type. When you plot a scatter diagram of distributions for the two periods, you will find there is little divergence from the straight line passing through the origin and with slope unity. R-squared is 99.5.

    The paper does not discuss error bars. However, the climate date has since been revised to remove wet bias. This correction would increase R2 by reducing the number of cells that have changed climate type. Since a large percentage of changed cells shifted because of increased wetness, the correction for wet bias may significantly reduce the estimated changes in climate zones during the period 1901-2005.

    In any other field of Earth science, using data with similar precision, we would conclude that we cannot reject the null hypothesis that the two data Koppen-Trewartha climate maps, separated by 75 years, are not significantly different.

  3. Hmmm, If you are talking about a Carrington Event, I think the Impact will be hugh, I mean how will you run a computer model if most of the computers are fried. You’ll would have to use the actual data instead of projections (The Horror…..)

  4. also keep an eye on the stop/start nature of the LA Nina and se how the temperature anomoly goes lower when the sun spots come back.

  5. Who’d a thunk it, that great ball of fire burning at over1 million degrees would have any bearng on warmth here on Earth!

  6. Interesting. So she is looking at what causes sun spot activity, not the sun spot activity, and seeing in that, a cooling trend. That is a different approach.

    What I will not ever understand about AGW is the concept that what we are doing at this time will somehow overpower the forces that obviously controlled the past. That somehow the carbon dioxide we create can do so much more damage than the carbon dioxide that was created by volcanos, and what have you, and far more of it, did in the past. Since that is obviously not the truth, then there has to be a different agenda driving the ploy. It has always smelled of population reduction to me – totally unprepare people for what is coming, and let the poor and old pay the price. Oh well, no one ever implied that those that had no spirituality ever had any real morality.

    • Club Of Rome
      Agenda 21
      UN /NGO driven socialism / progressive push to power.

      Been that way since at least the 1970’s and The Club Of Rome pushing of “The Limits To Growth” by Meadows pushed the Running Out Scare using computer predictions, oh, pardon, “projections” based on bad assumptions and lousy models.

      It isn’t about science, it is about political power and money. Morality isn’t even in their vocabulary…

  7. There was a low solar cycle in the mid 20th century after several increasingly stronger solar cycles prior to that. There was cooling from ~1945-1975. Then a few very robust solar cycles. Now we are having weak to very weak ones. My personal belief is that the solar cycles do impact climate in terms of downward pressure on temperatures, and these changes are exacerbated by volcanic activity. There is some lag between decreasing activity and colder temperatures – think of the peak of summer temps being about a month after the solstice – and a lag to warm back up after cycles increase again. I do not know whether weak solar cycles are linked with increased volcanic activity or if it is coincidental, but both drive cooling effects. ENSO cycles add variability, but I think we will be looking out for at least some cooling over the next 10-30 years, which could be strengthened with any major eruption.

  8. My, I would assume, then, she hadn’t read an paper on another theory, that the hemispheres act in opposites. North warm, South cold, and visa versa. I believe I read that back in the minutes, and the theory was old then. Calling that we were heading toward a cold 21 st century in the northern hemisphere.

  9. Whatever the cause(s), if you Google “EPA Causes of Climate Change” you will find a good chart illustrating 11 larger and smaller cycles of global warming and cooling over the last 800,000 years. Yes, that’s EPA as in Environmental Protection Agency, United States Government.

    Any claim by any government agency that the government doesn’t know that the climate has been cyclically warming and cooling for hundreds of thousands, or tens of millions, of years, is just BS.

  10. The thing that gets me about climate “science” is the arrogance of those pricks.

    Newton’s law of gravity was “settled science” for more than 300 years until Einstein. Einstein showed there were some flaws in Newton’s assumptions that Newton could not have known about at the time he lived.

    Einstein’s GR has been verified by empirical evidence but when he published it he was set upon by the “consensus” in much the same manner anyone who questions climate science is today.

    Despite his brilliance and stature Newton got his particle model of light wrong.

    This shows how science is never settled – even something as useful as Newtonian mechanics isn’t strictly “right or settled”.

  11. Unfortunately alethephobia (fear of the truth) is possibly man kinds greatest mental illness so anyone telling the truth will have a hard job getting their message across to the fairy tale believing public.

  12. If only the sun consistently produced all forms of energy output constantly. But it doesn’t. Output of short wave-length (high energy) photons is far from constant through a solar cycle and across cycles. Also the solar wind speed, composition and density changes dramatically sometimes even from one hour to the next. Finally the sun’s various magnetic fields can rapidly change significantly.
    Sunspots are only one phenomena that cause changes in some forms of the sun’s energy output that affect our planet. It is very simplistic to only pin arguments about the sun’s effect on Earth’s climate to sunspot activity. And yes Earth’s volcanic activity is part of the equation but it too is indirectly affected by long term changes in magnetic activity of the sun as well as short-term changes in space weather near Earth.

  13. The problem in climate science is that a weak correlation between warming and CO2 increases in the atmosphere is taken as “proof” for the largely political agenda behind impoverishment of the global population through reducing energy availability.

    I have an equally impressive correlation.

    Every time I shower I notice hair on the shower floor and many of these obviously come from my head because they are too long to have come elsewhere.

    Therefore showering causes hair loss – perhaps even baldness !

  14. This Professor had better watch her back because these Satanic Marxists will suppress “anything” that gets in their way !

    “Anything” !!!

    Global Climate/Warming is their God, they do as they are told and they will stop at “nothing” to execute their plan and do it through via the most “extreme” prejudice !!!

    She needs to cover Her back, and a body guard would surely help and to all who comment on these posts, including the Writers, had better know that We “all” are being monitored, cataloged and identified by governments (Singular and Plural) as they wait to gain total control and if you think that’s a joke just look around and watch this as the One-World-Government takes shape and also notice our current Liar-and-Thief, who “if” he had that kind of power now, We “all” wouldn’t be here, right now…

    Currently the internet allows (Gives) for Us to get the word out where and when truth is in short supply, but within 10 years the Internet will become our “enemy” !!!

    It’s called silencing

  15. She is correct and some real scientists have been predicting this for years
    I have a request .. instead of “climate scientist” the term “supposed climate scientist” should be used .. it’s not like one can get a degree anywhere in “Climate Science” .. it’s a term anyone can use

Comments are closed.