Some say the world will end in fire…
Professor Valentina Zharkova gave a presentation of her Climate and the Solar Magnetic Field hypothesis at the Global Warming Policy Foundation in October, 2018. The information she unveiled should shake/wake you up.
Zharkova was one of the few that correctly predicted solar cycle 24 would be weaker than cycle 23 — only 2 out of 150 models predicted this.
Her models have run at a 93% accuracy and her findings suggest a Super Grand Solar Minimum is on the cards beginning 2020 and running for 350-400 years.
The last time we had a little ice age only two magnetic fields of the sun went out of phase.
This time, all four magnetic fields are going out of phase.
The rest of the Frost poem is here:
From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.
More about the poem’s origins:
It was published in December 1920 in Harper’s Magazine and in 1923 in his Pulitzer Prize-winning book New Hampshire….
According to one of Frost’s biographers, “Fire and Ice” was inspired by a passage in Canto 32 of Dante’s Inferno, in which the worst offenders of hell, the traitors, are submerged, while in a fiery hell, up to their necks in ice: “a lake so bound with ice, / It did not look like water, but like a glass … right clear / I saw, where sinners are preserved in ice.”
In an anecdote he recounted in 1960 in a “Science and the Arts” presentation, prominent astronomer Harlow Shapley claims to have inspired “Fire and Ice”. Shapley describes an encounter he had with Robert Frost a year before the poem was published in which Frost, noting that Shapley was the astronomer of his day, asked him how the world will end. Shapley responded that either the sun will explode and incinerate the Earth, or the Earth will somehow escape this fate only to end up slowly freezing in deep space. Shapley was surprised at seeing “Fire and Ice” in print a year later, and referred to it as an example of how science can influence the creation of art, or clarify its meaning.
Please see this post of mine from 2014 for a look at more of Frost’s take on science, and the breadth and depth of his intellect. There’s another poem there which, although far inferior to “Fire and Ice,” is relevant to this discussion and may surprise you.
I think I have read every Frost poem. I have several books them. I have also been to his home.
I memorized “On stopping by the Woods..” years ago.
I am quite concerned about a cooling trend. The whole global warming thing reminds me of Poe’s “Masque of the Red Death” which was based on a real event.
I clearly remember the msm stoking the fear of a swiftly approaching ice age, and guess what humans were to blame. That was in the 70s. Now of course, humans are setting the planet on fire. Soon history will repeat itself and humans will be causing a new ice age. There will always be a reason for why we should surrender to our elitist betters and be obedient, humble serfs.
Meanwhile, a potential blizzard is approaching. I suspect Gore’s private jet is to blame.
Ah, but last time we didn’t have all this carbon! Burn more of it! fill up the atmosphere!
We won’t have to wait long to find out whether Zharkova is right. 2020 is not much more than a year away.
How ironic would it be if AGW will someday have been found to have staved off the impending ice age, and the measures taken to pare back AGW to have capitulated to it?
Since, today we actually know how to influence climate, don’t you think that we would? Assuming, of course that the predictions are correct.
Yes, Yackums, we should be burning more fossil fuels to avoid freezing!
Fantastic! And hard to find on my own, at work, after reading this at home. Had to come back here to get the link.
Very important 93 min video. YouTube took down one version. Here’s the “official” version from The Global Warming Policy Foundation.
https://www.thegwpf.org/professor-valentina-zharkova-the-solar-magnetic-field-and-the-terrestrial-climate/
The physics and math behind the separation of the two main magnetic fields was fascinating and convincing — because the model created a formula whose past predictions were pretty close to past recorded observations, and whose fairly near term predictions are close enough to be more clearly measured. This formula was derived from data from only the prior 3, of 23 well-documented, 11 year sun cycles.
She’s an Astrophysicist, and her work is on the Sun. Some of the key issues:
a) prior attempts to explain sunspot activity, and predict future cycles, have been poor. Her theory of two different magnetic fields interacting has allowed her to create a formula (with eigenvalues using cosines of cosines, real cool complex math for those so inclined), which she used years ago to make predictions about the current solar cycle having so few sunspots. Her predictions were most accurate. (Predictions from her model = hers). (I think everybody needs to believe those whose derived eigenvalue formulas include summations of functions with cosines of cosines – don’t you?)
b) Low sunspots, meaning low magnetic flow from the sun, should mean less sun-based magnetic protection from cosmic rays. More cosmic rays coming into the earth means more disruption of low level clouds, which mean much less cloud based heat is trapped — “opening the window for heat loss”. An important global warming model aspect is more CO2, more low clouds, more heat trapped. Instead, more cosmic rays dissipate more of the heat-trapping clouds, invalidating the CO2 models which fail to take into account cosmic ray fluctuation.
c) The Maunder Minimum is a clear, known, historic event. At that time, part of the “Little Ice Age”, the Thames river did freeze over. Using the Zharkova formula from 3 recent cycles and working backward, her formula predicts that Maunder Minimum data that was actually observed in terms of sunspot counting, which was an infant science at the time.
d) good 5 min interview hitting some of the above highlights:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/09/solar-physicist-sees-global-cooling-ahead/
e) The word “Zharkova” was probably more like Doctor Zhivago “Zh” not Z, sort of like an “Sh” is different than an S, so that shoal is not sole, Zhar is probably not Zar. Slavic languages can have a diacritic over single character c, s, and z, but the English equivalents are only for ch & sh, there aren’t really English words with that Zh. The Professor is an engaging, lively, interesting, and humble person. She is quick to claim her expertise is the Sun, not the Earth temperature. She also claims her theory is not comprehensive, using a prism of white light being decomposed into multiple wavelengths as an analogy of her decomposition of magnetic fields into different ‘Principle Components’, and so far her theory covers only ultraviolet, red, and blue — not yet all the Components.
(I find her vocal tones high and a little annoying, like so many women today, but put up with it for the content.)
f) GWPF is pushing, correctly, that the power of science is based on making accurate predictions. She’s making some strong predictions, with fairly close years of specific, limited confirmation: We will see it from 2020 to 2053, when the three next cycles will be very reduced magnetic field of the sun.
Pingback:Global Cooling to dominate climate in 2020 – Solar Physicist V. Zharkova | Tom Grey - Freedom with Responsibility
The Burning has already started in US California.