Articles GSM 

Professor Valentina Zharkova’s ‘Expanded’ Analysis still Confirms Super Grand Solar Minimum (2020-2055)

Professor Valentina Zharkova’s recent paper ‘Oscillations of the Baseline of Solar Magnetic Field and Solar Irradiance on a Millennial Timescale’ has been accepted for publishing in Nature. It confirms a Grand Solar Minimum (GSM) from 2020 to 2055, as all four magnetic fields of the sun go out of phase, while also suggesting centuries of natural warming post-Minima.

Zharkova’s team’s expanded ‘double dynamo’ calculations match-up almost perfectly with the timelines of past Grand Minimas: the Maunder Minimum (1645–1715), Wolf minimum (1300–1350), Oort minimum (1000–1050), Homer minimum (800–900 BC); as well as with the past Grand Maximas: the Medieval Warm Period (900–1200), the Roman Warm Period (400–150 BC), and so on…

Coming as somewhat of a surprise however, Zharkova’s full and expanded analysis reveals the sun, following its next GSM cycle (2020-2055), will actually enter a 300+ year spell of increased-activity warming the earth at a rate of 0.5C (0.9F) per century, running until the next GSM cycle (2370-2415).

Succeeding that cooling period (2415-onward), the world, according to Zharkova, will continue on with its warming trend, again at an average of 0.5C (0.9F) per century, until the year 2600 when the sun will flip to a prolonged cooling phase running for the next 1000 years (and likely propelling Earth into the next ice age).

It is a little confusing why Zharkova failed to mention these long spells of warming (2055-2370 and then 2415-2600) in her original ‘teaser’ presentation back in October, 2018. Whether it has been included to continue her funding and/or to see her GSM message reach a wider audience is honestly anyone’s guess.

Though to her credit, at least the 0.5C (0.9F) warming per century is driven by the sun, and not you, not CO2.

Zharkova’s work, at worst, confirms that the earth warms and cools as a part of complex natural cycles.

For a more detailed look at the paper, click here for tallbloke’s breakdown.

And, to me at least, it remains a fair takeaway that regardless of what happens post-2055, that 35 year cooling period beginning 2020 should be enough to give almost-every living organism on the planet cause for concern.

Historically, life hasn’t done too well in the cold:

Our star is effectively shutting down, starting next year (2020).

The upcoming GSM is forecast (by Zharkova herself, among others) to be similar to the Maunder Minimum (1645-1715) — a time when sunspots were exceedingly rare and much of the planet experienced colder than average temperatures.

We are already seeing an increase in unstable weather patterns, as the weakest solar cycle in over 100 years (SC24) continues to weaken the jet stream, reverting it’s usual zonal (tight) flow to more of a meridional (wavy) one.

Major flooding, snowstorms, anomalous cold and bursts of unseasonable heat are all contributing to one of the poorest growing years on record for the farmers around the globe.

An uptick in high-level volcanic eruptions is also associated with low solar activity. Increasing Cosmic Rays are believed to heat the muons in subsurface silica-rich magma (click here for more on that). And larger eruptions (ones that fire volcanic ash above 32,800 feet (10 km) and into the Stratosphere) have a direct cooling effect on the planet, as these ejected particulates effectively block out the sun.

An influx of Cosmic Rays (caused by a decrease in deflecting solar winds) also nucleate more clouds (Svensmark) and these play an major role in earth’s climate:

“Clouds are the Earth’s sunshade, and if cloud cover changes for any reason, you have global warming — or global cooling.” — Roy W. Spencer PhD.

Unfortunately things are only expected to get worse, until 2055 at least, with now even NASA joining in the fun with their latest SC25 forecast suggesting it’ll be the weakest cycle for the last 200 years, continuing the solar shutdown:

The agency is effectively forecasting a return to the Dalton Minimum (1790-1830) without giving mention to the brutal cold, crop loss, famine, war and powerful Volcanic eruptions associated with it.

The year 1816 went on to earn the name, “Eighteen Hundred and Froze to Death“ (see the link below).

The cold times are returning.

The next Solar Cycle (25) is likely just a stop-off on our descent into the next super Grand Solar Minimum cycle.

Prepare (and help support Electroverse) by becoming a Patron and receive a FREE Survival Tool:

Social Media channels are actively restricting our reach. Be sure to subscribe to receive new post notifications by email (the box is located in the sidebar >>> or scroll down if on mobile).

Help us SPREAD OUR MESSAGE so others can survive and thrive in the coming times.

Grand Solar Minimum + Pole Shift

[Featured Image: NASA/SDO/Goddard Space Flight Center]

Related posts

35 Thoughts to “Professor Valentina Zharkova’s ‘Expanded’ Analysis still Confirms Super Grand Solar Minimum (2020-2055)”

  1. Robert Weisansal

    Some points to consider are:
    1. Global warming isa 65 billion dollar a year business.
    2. It has been stated as well as noted that those who go againt global warming are haranged and not funded.
    3. Dr. Z is on record with her lecture given at the Global Warming Policy Foundation in 2018.
    4. What acually is going on behind the scene that we aren’t privy to?

    As of now, we will not have long to wait!

  2. daninbluemd

    Guess it’s a good thing we earthlings warmer ‘er up a bit, lol.

  3. David Young

    Why are you saying that Zharkova’s work says that CO2 doesn’t drive warming? She does not say that and her paper does not support this conclusion at all.
    In fact, on three occassions in this paper she points out that human-induced factors are not part of this research. She concludes “Furthermore, the substantial temperature decreases are expected during the two grand minima47 to occur in 2020–2055 and 2370–24156, whose magnitudes cannot be yet predicted and need further investigation. These oscillations of the estimated terrestrial temperature do not include any human-induced factors, which were outside the scope of the current paper. ”
    Why are you lying to your readership? Is your intent to deceive, or have you misunderstood this research?

    1. Cap Allon

      Watch any interview she gives.

      Zharkova is warning of drastically lower temperatures and crop loss, both associated with this coming GSM.

      1. Robert Trenwith

        Zharkova says ….. it MUST be right.

        1. Chris Norman

          And what do you say Robert?

  4. David Young

    I am simply pointing out that you are inappropriately using this research paper to make claims that the research doesn’t. She in fact goes to great lengths in the paper to state that human caused influences were not part of the research. This paper does not support the claims you make.
    What you are doing is providing misinformation. You are deceiving your readers – either deliberately or through ignorance.

    1. Cap Allon

      Again, Zharkova IS warning of a drastically cooler climate over the next few decades, starting 2020.

  5. R K

    The amount of warming described as a result of solar activity or lack thereof is enough to account for the warming we’ve seen over the last century or 2 regardless of human activity. That isn’t to say humans have carte blanche to act irresponsibly. This simply points out natural forces are extremely powerful when compared to the influence of man.

  6. Chris Norman

    With reference to David Youngs remarks, Professor Zharkova was subjected to extraordinary attack with warminst trying to stop the publication of her work and have her removed from the Royal Society.
    Obviously as the planet cools their CO2 theory lies in tatters as her attacker understood very well. To pacify matters somewhat the Professor started to say that she knew nothing of effects of CO2 on the climate.
    Meanwhile the planet cools, the snow piles up, the polar ice grows, etc, etc.
    CO2 is a non event, in fact in the coming cold a bit of warming would be a plus.

  7. David Young

    With reference to Chris Norman’s remarks – the planet is warming, not cooling. The observation and evidence for AGW is stronger than ever, not in tatters. And Zharkova did not say that she knew nothing of the effects of CO2 on climate. What she has said in her papers is that her work is outside the effect of CO2 and GHGs on climate.
    In case you don’t understand this distinction, what it means is that she is studying one effect on the earth’s climate (the sun). There are other effects as well (eg: GHGs). You (and Electroverse) seem to be making the mistake of assuming that her work shows that the sun is the dominant effect. It isn’t. That is why the earth’s climate is warning (due to increased GHGs) and not cooling (due to the GSM). If we didn’t have elevated levels of GHGs then perhaps we would be witnessing a slight cooling effect, but we aren’t as GHGs are currently the dominant effect.

    1. Chris Norman

      So taking my lead from the NSIDC let’s look at the last six years of “maximum” sea ice area.

      Year million square kilometers. Date
      2016 14.52 March 24.
      2017 14.43 the original 7 – nsidc altered it to 14.42.
      2018 14.48 17
      2019 14.78 13
      2020 15.05 5 …………excellent.
      2021 14.77 21

      1. David Young

        Chris, do you think 6 years a data is sufficient to show a trend?
        Who suggested those years to you?

        I’d suggest you read the source you purport to be using:

        1. Chris Norman

          The head of the IPCC specifically mentioned the disappearing Arctic ice in a recent speech. He lied.
          I know what the NSIDC position is – Co2 doom.
          One of the best pieces of advice I ever received was don’t listen to what they say, watch what they do. When all of the BS is stripped away what is left the reality of the ice.
          It still there.
          At its max it’s twice the size of Australia.
          The ice does not lie, it has no political agenda, it is not seeking funding, it just is.
          Its importance is the that many scientist predicted that starting in about 2015 give or take a few years, based on their research, the planet would descend into a new Maunder Minimum, and that appears to be happening.
          And if you bone up on that period in history you will realise it is the end of the world as we know it.
          We have a massive population.
          Every acre of land produces 7 time the crop that was produced in the MM and thus will be 7 times the loss.
          The damage to crops is already happening. South America and NZ (where I live) are being hammered at this very moment by bitter cold and crop loss.

          It is my belief that this is just the beginning. Just a taste of what is about to be delivered. My advice to you is when you hear a journalist telling you that the extreme cold you are experiencing is due to man made warming then you really need to take stock of what is real and what is not.

          1. David Young

            Your very selective focus on Arctic winter sea ice is leading you to some very wrong conclusions.

            While Arctic sea ice is growing faster and higher during the winter, it is more than offset by the melting in summer. At the moment the increased rate of sea ice growth in the winter helps to mitigate the melting during the summer. However, ultimately the warming summer temperatures continue to overall reduce the extent of sea ice.

            In fact, there has been an average 12.8% decline in average September sea ice extent, and that rate of decline has been increasing since the 1990s.

            Regarding the cold snaps, it isn’t anything to do with the GSM and a new MM, it is do with an unstable polar vortex. Increasing warm air pushes north displacing the stable polar vortex, and pockets of that then push much farther south than they would normally, leading to unusual cold snaps for those locations.

            This is well understood science. Read science, not misinformation blogs like this one.

            You need to understand this topic better as your conclusions are very wrong.

      2. David Young

        Do you think 6 years of data is sufficient to show a trend?
        Who suggested that to you?
        Here you go. This will help:

        1. Chris Norman

          David I have a wide reading of climate science. It’s one of the reasons that I believe that the Chinese CP don’t believe in AGW.
          Every single paper I read written by a chinese scientist made it clear that planetary temperature was solar powered.
          China has plans to build “hundreds” of power stations while many of the current ones are reportedly idling along. They clearly see a future need. They are also building millions of square kilometers of greenhouses. What for.
          Another MM is coming David. Nothing will stop it.

          1. David Young

            Maybe you have but again you are drawing the wrong conclusions.
            China’s greenhouse boom is to do with productivity not another MM.
            Controlled environment agriculture means crops can be grown year around and their mechanisation makes them far more efficient.
            China has a lot of people to feed and they want to be as self sufficient as they can.
            It is nothing to do with their acceptance (or not) of the fact of AGW.

  8. Chris Norman

    Note – the way the above is on the page is not the way I assembled it in an gmail that I wrote. All the dates are March.

    William Rosen wrote the highly readable book “The Third Horseman” 2014. “A story of weather, War and the Famine that history forgot”. The history starts in 1308 with intense cold established.
    Out of curiosity about two weeks ago I subtracted 1308 from 2021, gives 713.
    I divided that by 2, gives 356.5.
    Subtract 356 from 2021 gives 1665, comfortably within the Maunder Minimum.
    Evidently every 356 years it gets very cold.

  9. David Young

    Used to Chris. The industrial revolution was the beginning of the end of that.
    Check the graph out in this link:

    Tell me, when do you think that graph is going to show the dramatic decrease that you’re expecting?

  10. John

    Since the Industrial Revolution started in 1760, curious how you determine this from the Berkeley graph? Furthermore, this graph indicated flat temperatures until 1920. I see no corellation with the Industrial Revolution.

  11. David Young

    Our shift to a carbon intensive, fossil fuel based economy started with the industrial revolution and has accelerated since then, particularly in the 20thC.
    Do you dispute this as well?

    1. John

      Do you dispute no temperature rise for 270 years of the industrial revolution?

      1. David Young

        Odd question John.
        The industrial revolution lasted 80 years from 1760 to 1840.
        Which 270 year period are you referring to?

  12. David Young

    Our shift to a carbon intensive, fossil fuel based economy started then and has since accelerated, especially in the 20th C.
    Do you deny this as well?

  13. Chris Norman

    You are a true believer David, filled with righteous zeal, come hence to smite the heretics and their vile denial.
    If you wish to believe AGW go for your life, but I would recommend you cut out the patronising remarks and abusive epithets.
    Great cold is coming David. Never say you weren’t told.

  14. David Young

    Not really sure what you’re on about Chris. All I have tried to do is rebut your points with some basic facts and logic.
    I note you swiftly move on every time to something new, avoiding any form of debate.
    I’d say you are the zealot; belief despite the facts.

  15. Chris Norman

    There is no debate david, the science is settled.

  16. David Young

    You’re right there Chris. Glad you finally realised that.
    Must have been quite an epiphany – which of the papers I shared did it?

    1. Anonymous

      I think the joke on you here is ‘science is never settled’, Anyone who thinks it is is not thinking critically
      A new theory can come along and when proven can usurp the previous theory.

      Problems arise when there are conflicts of interest, vested parties and also with peer review, social issues can also cause suppression of ideas
      deliberate or not
      please try to be more open minded

      There is more than one graph to look at

      1. Warwick Wakefield

        This points to an often ignored fact about the development of scientific theories

  17. braintic

    How is this cycle looking at present in comparison to the last?

    1. braintic

      I was hoping this would be answered by the person who has approved the comment.

    2. braintic

      Gone silent I see. How about now, 8 months later?

Leave a Comment