Suppressed Scientific Evidence for the coming Global Cooling

[bashi]

The prime supplier of energy for Earth is the Sun.
Any change in the irradiation coming from the sun has an immediate effect here on Earth.
The amount of energy irradiated is depending on the number of sunspots on the surface of the sun: The more sunspots emerge, the higher the irradiation.
This association of solar variations and climatic cooling is known for long.
This is not related to the number of CME’s ejected from the sun.
So a measurement of the number, size and strength of the sunspots over time is in direct correlation to the climate on Earth. Since many centuries the sunspots were measured and counted.
Only the visible, bigger and therefore easily countable sunspots were included in these observations.

An example for the correlation is the known “Little Iceage” in medieval times:

Sun spot activity during the “Maunder” solar minimum. From 1650 to 1700 virtually no sun spots were observed. It resulted into a global cooling, causing devastating famines in Europe.

The Maunder Minimum were preceded by the Sporer Minimum and cooling and followed by the Dalton Minimum and cooling from 1790-1820, then the 1880-1915 solar minimum and cooling and finally the 1945-1977 solar minimum and cooling.
Remember, the relation between the sunspots and climate are based on the number of bigger, visible sunspots from Earth.

For these early correlations the few hundreds of sunspots were used, which at that time were detectable from Earth.

[bashi]

So right now were are in a warmer period. What will happen next?

As mentioned here,

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...ll=1#post54736,

the Bilderberger group had global cooling on their discussion schedule in June. It can be reasonably assumed that these people do not like to be fooled by some Mumbo Jumbo, like the one Dr. Gianluigi Zangari is broadcasting with his Loop Current breaking. They need rock solid evidence.

What does the Bilderberger Group know that we don't know? What is been kept away from us? What has escaped our attention, because it has maybe been obscured?

On my long search I finally found this article:

“Long-term Evolution of Sunspot Magnetic Fields”
by Matthew J. Penn and William Livingston

source: http://www.noao.edu/staff/mpenn/Penn...n_preprint.pdf

In this article a study was carried out using 4000 sunspots within the last solar cycle 23 and the new ones from cycle 24. This is a vastly higher number than used in the ealier studies.

The results of this study are just staggering.

But I am jumping too far ahead.

As mentioned inside the document ( “To appear in IAU Symposium No. 273”),
it was meant to be publicly presented and discussed during the
International Astronomical Union symposium on August 23-26, 2010.

Please note: The supposed public release was scheduled for August while the Bilderberg conference in June had already discussions about Global Cooling on its agenda.

So, what happened?

Well, the IAU symposium came and finished without the publication of the article by Penn/Livingston. See the list of proceeding editors during the conference here:

http://www.iau.org/static/scientific...tBoard2010.pdf

For presentation 273, the IAUS 273 , a substitute was selected: “Physics of Sun and star spots” by Debi Prasad Choudhary. Note the similar sounding heading.

The decision to remove the Penn/Livingston article has been taken already before 1st of April 2010, as can be seen here:

http://www.iau.org/static/scientific...ditors2010.pdf

But still the issue of Global Cooling was so well established and serious that it made it onto the list of the Bilderberger’s discussion during their meeting in June 2010.

So the article has been hold back, and the official reasons for it are voiced in this article:
“David Hathaway, a solar physicist with the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, also cautioned the calculations do not take into account that many small sunspots with relatively weak magnetic fields appeared during the last solar maximum, and if these are not included in the calculations the average magnetic field strength would seem higher than it actually was.”
http://www.physorg.com/news203746768.html

To use this criticism is absolutely hilarious, as I will discuss later.

Penn/Livingston are addressing the dispute briefly in their version of the article from 3rd September 2010:

“ We examined synoptic observations from the NSO Kitt Peak Vacuum Telescope and
initially (with 4000 spots) found a change in sunspot brightness which roughly agreed
with the infrared observations. A more detailed examination (with 13,000 spots) of
both spot brightness and line-of-sight magnetic flux reveals that the relationship of the
sunspot magnetic fields with spot brightness and size remain constant during the solar
cycle. There are only small temporal variations in the spot brightness, size, and line-
of-sight flux seen in this larger sample. Because of the apparent disagreement between
the two data sets, we discuss how the infrared spectral line provides a uniquely direct
measurement of the magnetic fields in sunspots.”

The Penn/Livingston article has been suppressed by using superficial scientific arguments.

WHY? Because of scientific inaccuracy?


.

[bashi]

Lets go into the main results of their finding:

They measured the magnetic field strength inside the sunspots where the completely dark area, called the “Umbra”, is. A plot of it for solar cycle 23 and 24 is here:

Nothing spectacular you would say. A small decrease and that’s all!
But there is more to the story.

First, about the argument that they have neglected the many small sunspots.
There is a good reason for it:
As much smaller the spots as much higher is the observational error!
As a serious scientist you do not want to say: “There is a 10% chance that the magnetic field might be slightly stronger, but there is a 90% probability that it is not so.” The statement might be correct per se, but does make no scientific sense.
That’s why Penn/Livingston did not include the 13000 small sunspots.
They addressed it in their article:
” And most recently in these proceedings, measurements of the magnetic fields from sunspot umbrae near the center of the solar disk using MDI magnetograms (Watson & Fletcher 2010) show a smaller decrease in the magnetic field strength, but that result is not significant compared to the standard errors of their fit.”

It’s the polite, scientific way to say “Guys, you are creating BS!”

Penn/Livingston have not included the 13000 small sunspots, because they wanted to publish reliable scientific data. It is more than telling that this intent has been used in a hilarious argument (of a 10% chance) to suppress the public discussion of their article.

Now the second, more important part of the story:
You should know that there is a threshold, a minimum of magnetic field strength which is required to allow a sunspot to form.
This threshold is ~1500 Gauss. No sunspot will form below it!
That is an observed, well known and undisputed rule.
The threshold-line is drawn in the above picture.
Do you also see the three sloped lines there, indicating different possible scenarios?
They indicate three statistically possible scenarios of changes of the magnetic field strength in the susspots. Their finding:
“The magnetic change corresponds to the most steeply sloped line in the picture.“

Then Penn/Livingston used the available trend in the data to compute the most likely future number and probable size/strength of sunspots for solar cycle 24 and 25.
This is called “Probability Distribution Function (PDF)”.
Now the results are now much more clearer:

“The magnetic probability distribution function (PDF) is shown for the measurements
of sunspots during Cycle 23. With the assumption discussed in the text, we can produce PDFs for Cycles 24 and 25. A simple scaling using the total number of spots suggests Cycle 24 will peak with a SSN (SunSpotNumber) of 66, and Cycle 25 will peak with a SSN of 7.”

It is clear that the sun - most probably – will become very, very quiet over the next years.
No more sunspots!!!
This does not mean that the Gulf Stream will be interrupted or something like a Younger Dryas iceage is going to happen, but it still can cause a very significant cooling, like as the one during the Maunder Minimum.

For today’s 7 Billion inhabitants of Earth it means: A coming desperate fight for food, which will be by far not enough to feed all.

This is why the info has been suppressed.

[TraineeHuman]

There was an article on this in Nexus Magazine about two years ago. It drew on the same study you have analysed, Bashi. It quoted several leading experts who drew basically the same conclusion: that the earth would experience a mini ice age from 2010 to 2020. I believe this conclusion was based mainly on the same studies as you have described so clearly for us.

The beginning of any ice age, even an unusually short one, always sees greatly increased earthquake and volcanic activity for at least several years.

[lightblue]

.
as from about minute 8, piers corbyn is stating exactly the same..we are actually entering the coldest of the interglacial periods.. also talking about crimes against science
... l

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=pRRXZ1B5foE

.

[Humble Janitor]

So, instead of denying climate change, people are now claiming this "global cooling" phenomenon?

I'll eat my words if the next 10 years sees a mini ice age. However, I'm not holding my breath. I think we're more likely to see hotter summers, followed by more and more rain and snow.

[Swami]

Adriaen Pietersz van de Venne (1589 - 1662)


Venne Berlin Winter landscape

Venne pendant Worcester Winter

[Swami]

David Teniers the Younger about 1644



¤=[Post Update]=¤

Adriaen van de Velde (1636 - 1672)

[Swami]

Esaias van de Velde I (1587 - 1630)

[Swami]

Johan Barthold Jongkind 1864

[irishspirit]

Bashi, excellent post.

But the facts I think remain, when people wake up freezing, and their homes there no more, they can surpress what they like, the evidence cannot be hidden.

Be Safe

Irish

[Mu2143]

When I think about it and look back what PTB has created in the gulf and the propaganda that they all the time have used that its going to get warmer.
If the illuminati wants to deceive us then they will hide the truth about it and cause confusion among the conspiracy scientist.
You have too look it in a bigger picture and think about if we already knew the -->global warming CO2 <-- is a scam why did they created a disaster that is going to cause a global cooling on less you put the PHOTON BELT in to the picture and here we going to have our global warming.

[bashi]

Posted by Humble Janitor (here)
So, instead of denying climate change, people are now claiming this "global cooling" phenomenon?

I'll eat my words if the next 10 years sees a mini ice age. However, I'm not holding my breath. I think we're more likely to see hotter summers, followed by more and more rain and snow.

You don`t have to be a scientist to find out what is what. You need just common sense and put a little bit of effort into the matter.

For example look at wiki here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core#Ice_core_data

The graphic at first does not look impressive...

But a blow up of the data will show you that the temperature (blue) changed FIRST and the CO2 (green) followed suit AFTER (vertical red bars by me). So the temperature change is the cause of the change in CO2 and not the result.
GORE THAT!



.

[bashi]

Posted by TraineeHuman (here)
There was an article on this in Nexus Magazine about two years ago.

Yes, i found also other articles about it. They appeared in the specific scientific literature.
This info is not suppressed there, but seems not to have trickled down into MSM.