German Scientific Study Predicts Global Cooling till 2030

Research based on over 100 independent expert studies points to a cooling Earth climate at least until 2030. Author, Dr. Theodor Landscheidt of the Schroeter Institute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity points to failures by climatologists to account for solar variation in their projections.

 
The study ‘New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming?’ comprises a rigorous analysis of leading peer-reviewed papers. It is a sharp retort to unfounded global warming alarm propagated by government-sponsored climatologists and discredits claims by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that had speculated alarmist and unfounded temperature rises this century.

 Indeed, Dr. Landscheidt’s study points to statements by the editors of the journal Science (2002) admitting an increasing in the number of publications that point to varying solar activity as a strong factor in climate change. The German solar specialist advises:

 "The continuing debate about man-made global warming has reached a crucial stage. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), established by the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), no longer publishes well defined best estimate projections of global temperature rise to the year 2100 caused by increases in greenhouse gas accumulations in the atmosphere, but publicizes  storylines to speculate about warming as high as 5.8 Degrees C till 2100.”

 
Strong Link Between Solar Variation and Earth's Climate Changes

The study further asserts, “As more and more wiggles matching the waxing and waning of the sun show up in records of past climate, researchers are grudgingly taking the sun seriously as a factor in climate change.”

The evidence collated from the 100+ specialist papers shows that the IPCC incorrectly adjudged that the solar factor is negligible and is at fault for omitting to take into account that the Sun's eruptional activity (energetic flares, coronal mass ejections, eruptive prominences), heavily affecting the solar wind, as well as softer solar wind contributions by coronal holes have a much stronger effect than total irradiance.

In fact, “The total magnetic flux leaving the Sun, dragged out by the solar wind, has risen by a factor of 2.3 since 1901, “ notes Dr. Landscheidt.

While the latest 11-year sunspot cycle 23 has shown noticeably weaker activity and appears to be a first indication of a cooling trend. The outcome of this change in solar activity may fatally impact the IPCC's hypothesis of man-made global warming.

Normal
0

As Dr. Kleespies observed, “Dr. Landscheidt shows that temperature always lags those minima and maxima a few years. The next Gleissberg minimum will be 2030, thus meaning it will possibly get REALLY cold from then on.“

This expert study is a compelling analysis of the most up-to-date peer-reviewed solar science and serves as a reminder to climatologists to earnestly reassess the undeniable truth that our sun is the key driver of Earth’s climate, not human emissions of carbon dioxide.

Reference: Dr. Landscheidt, T., ‘New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming?’ (March 2012), www.schulphysik.de (accessed online: March 09, 2012)

14 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

14 responses to “German Scientific Study Predicts Global Cooling till 2030

  1. Anonymous

    That study was first published in 2003

  2. Anonymous

    That study was first published in 2003

  3. Anonymous

    Landscheidt, Astrologer
    You realize this “scientist” (dead since 2004) was an astrologer, right?
    Here are two of his books:
    Cosmic cybernetics: The foundations of a modern astrology (1973)
    Sun, Earth, Man: A Mesh of Cosmic Oscillations – How Planets Regulate Solar Eruptions, Geomagnetic Storms, Conditions of Life and Economic Cycles (1989)
    What’s next for the “skeptics”, tea leaves and entrails?

    • Re: Landscheidt, Astrologer
      You have such twisted logic. What about the 100+ peer-reviewed papers in the study? Your alarmist climate cult is busted. Accept it and move on.

      • Anonymous

        Re: Landscheidt, Astrologer
        They don’t support your astrologer’s conclusions. Just look at the last 50 years – the Sun if anything has cooled over that time and temperature’s have gone up half a degree Celsius. Cosmic ray’s have if anything trended up, not down, over that time as well – which kills the Cosmic ray hypothesis outright, even if a significant effect on cloud cover could be discovered. It’s not possible for the Sun to be the cause of the warming since the mid 70’s. Temps and the solar activity are going in opposite directions. This doesn’t mean sunspot cycles have no effect on temps, just that the effect is no where near as big as the growing forcing of rising GHG’s. (Which are all from us, BTW. Did you ever figure out what those Japanese captions were for those CO2 charts you so hideously misrepresented? lol)
        As for the “100+ papers”, 24 were from the astrologer himself, most of the others do not support his claims that cooling is immanent. In fact, the accepted figure for the effect on temps *if* we had another Maunder Minimum (which is not possible to predict) is about .3C of cooling globally. This would not erase the warming we’ve had in the last 40 years, let alone put us in another Little Ice Age. It’s also going to be on top of the warming from rising GHG’s. So instead of say 3C warming from a doubling of CO2 we get 2.7C.
        You’ve been taken in by a literal astrologer, all because you can’t accept basic physics. “Anything but CO2!” now includes accepting astrology.

      • Anonymous

        Re: Landscheidt, Astrologer
        If our atmosphere adds heat to the Earth’s surface how do you explain the temperature on the Moon during the lunar day ??
        The temperature observed matches the values predicted by the Stefan-Boltzman equation so well it is a verification of the work of Planck and these scientists.
        If the solar radiation alone can accomplish this on the Moon why can’t it on Earth ??
        Don’t claim the lunar day is 29 or so days long as the only determinant of temperature is the power of the radiation – sure there is a heating up time but many experiments on Earth verify the power of the solar radiation is capable of reaching theoretical blackbody max for the solar constanty in the time constraints of a day on Earth – else how did, for example, Langely achieve a recorded “greenhouse” temperature of ~113 degrees C in 1913 – remember the glass blocks the backradiation so this demonstrates the power of the solar radiation alone even if you believe the heating is by trapping the radiation – which it has clearly has been demonstrated numerous times is erroneous ???
        All the long lunar day is explain how the Moon cools so much during the lunar night !
        The Earth would quickly heat up to the temperature dictated by the solar constant during the day because during our night of 12 hours it would hardly cool at all and would commence the next heating cycle from much higher temperatures than the Moon exhibits during the night.
        Not only would the Earth exhibit maximum temperatures similar to the Moon during the day but the average would be very close to this maximum because our day is 24 hours.
        The fact that the Earth never even approaches the Moon’s maximum temperature is testament to the FACT that the oceans and atmosphere act to reduce the heating effect of the same solar radiation that bathes both “planets”.
        Atmospheres and oceans water reduce the surface temperature caused by the solar radiation.
        Here’s a few other things that cast doubt on the CO2 hypothesis –
        Solar panels work at about 20 % efficiency – how do mine generate ~170 W/sq m when Kiehl & Trenberth claim that ~170 W/sq m is the solar insolation ?? Remember thermal radiation inhibits the efficiency of solar panels so “backradiation” doesn’t even count.
        How does a ~170 W/sq m insolation raise the temperature inside greenhouses where the glass screens out “IR Backradiation” ??
        Why does a vacuum flask work ?? Because vacuums are the nearest thing to a perfect insulator known to man and this is because radiation heat loss alone is a slow process at ambient Earth temperatures.
        If CO2 or any “greenhouse” gas provided the heat trapping abilities claimed then “greenhouse” flasks would sell a motza – they don’t even work !!
        Space has no “temperature” as defined – only a mass can have a temperature and space has negligible mass !!
        No matter what you think of any of this think about 2 things – the temperature on the Moon with NO “greenhouse gases” or atmosphere for that matter – seriously why would Earth be minus 18 without “greenhouse gases” ?? The minus 18 simply demonstrates that it you uniformly illuminate a sphere on one side (an illuminated disk)with approximately 1000 W/sq m the whole spherical surface only needs to radiate at ~250 W/sq m to maintain equilibrium and science confirms this – it says nothing about the temperature produced by the ~1000 W/sq m only the temperature ~ 5 km up in the air where the Earth’s system is radiating to space at ~ minus 18 and funnily enough that is pretty damn accurate – it has nothing to do with the surface temperature at all.
        In our atmosphere the dominant modes of heat transport are conduction and convection – you can easily verify this by simple observation.

      • Re: Landscheidt, Astrologer
        Ross, well put. TY

      • Re: Landscheidt, Astrologer

        Ross, well put. TY

      • Anonymous

        Re: Landscheidt, Astrologer

        If our atmosphere adds heat to the Earth’s surface how do you explain the temperature on the Moon during the lunar day ??

        The temperature observed matches the values predicted by the Stefan-Boltzman equation so well it is a verification of the work of Planck and these scientists.

        If the solar radiation alone can accomplish this on the Moon why can’t it on Earth ??

        Don’t claim the lunar day is 29 or so days long as the only determinant of temperature is the power of the radiation – sure there is a heating up time but many experiments on Earth verify the power of the solar radiation is capable of reaching theoretical blackbody max for the solar constanty in the time constraints of a day on Earth – else how did, for example, Langely achieve a recorded “greenhouse” temperature of ~113 degrees C in 1913 – remember the glass blocks the backradiation so this demonstrates the power of the solar radiation alone even if you believe the heating is by trapping the radiation – which it has clearly has been demonstrated numerous times is erroneous ???

        All the long lunar day is explain how the Moon cools so much during the lunar night !

        The Earth would quickly heat up to the temperature dictated by the solar constant during the day because during our night of 12 hours it would hardly cool at all and would commence the next heating cycle from much higher temperatures than the Moon exhibits during the night.

        Not only would the Earth exhibit maximum temperatures similar to the Moon during the day but the average would be very close to this maximum because our day is 24 hours.

        The fact that the Earth never even approaches the Moon’s maximum temperature is testament to the FACT that the oceans and atmosphere act to reduce the heating effect of the same solar radiation that bathes both “planets”.

        Atmospheres and oceans water reduce the surface temperature caused by the solar radiation.

        Here’s a few other things that cast doubt on the CO2 hypothesis –

        Solar panels work at about 20 % efficiency – how do mine generate ~170 W/sq m when Kiehl & Trenberth claim that ~170 W/sq m is the solar insolation ?? Remember thermal radiation inhibits the efficiency of solar panels so “backradiation” doesn’t even count.

        How does a ~170 W/sq m insolation raise the temperature inside greenhouses where the glass screens out “IR Backradiation” ??

        Why does a vacuum flask work ?? Because vacuums are the nearest thing to a perfect insulator known to man and this is because radiation heat loss alone is a slow process at ambient Earth temperatures.

        If CO2 or any “greenhouse” gas provided the heat trapping abilities claimed then “greenhouse” flasks would sell a motza – they don’t even work !!

        Space has no “temperature” as defined – only a mass can have a temperature and space has negligible mass !!

        No matter what you think of any of this think about 2 things – the temperature on the Moon with NO “greenhouse gases” or atmosphere for that matter – seriously why would Earth be minus 18 without “greenhouse gases” ?? The minus 18 simply demonstrates that it you uniformly illuminate a sphere on one side (an illuminated disk)with approximately 1000 W/sq m the whole spherical surface only needs to radiate at ~250 W/sq m to maintain equilibrium and science confirms this – it says nothing about the temperature produced by the ~1000 W/sq m only the temperature ~ 5 km up in the air where the Earth’s system is radiating to space at ~ minus 18 and funnily enough that is pretty damn accurate – it has nothing to do with the surface temperature at all.

        In our atmosphere the dominant modes of heat transport are conduction and convection – you can easily verify this by simple observation.

      • Anonymous

        Re: Landscheidt, Astrologer

        They don’t support your astrologer’s conclusions. Just look at the last 50 years – the Sun if anything has cooled over that time and temperature’s have gone up half a degree Celsius. Cosmic ray’s have if anything trended up, not down, over that time as well – which kills the Cosmic ray hypothesis outright, even if a significant effect on cloud cover could be discovered. It’s not possible for the Sun to be the cause of the warming since the mid 70’s. Temps and the solar activity are going in opposite directions. This doesn’t mean sunspot cycles have no effect on temps, just that the effect is no where near as big as the growing forcing of rising GHG’s. (Which are all from us, BTW. Did you ever figure out what those Japanese captions were for those CO2 charts you so hideously misrepresented? lol)

        As for the “100+ papers”, 24 were from the astrologer himself, most of the others do not support his claims that cooling is immanent. In fact, the accepted figure for the effect on temps *if* we had another Maunder Minimum (which is not possible to predict) is about .3C of cooling globally. This would not erase the warming we’ve had in the last 40 years, let alone put us in another Little Ice Age. It’s also going to be on top of the warming from rising GHG’s. So instead of say 3C warming from a doubling of CO2 we get 2.7C.

        You’ve been taken in by a literal astrologer, all because you can’t accept basic physics. “Anything but CO2!” now includes accepting astrology.

    • Re: Landscheidt, Astrologer

      You have such twisted logic. What about the 100+ peer-reviewed papers in the study? Your alarmist climate cult is busted. Accept it and move on.

  4. Anonymous

    Landscheidt, Astrologer

    You realize this “scientist” (dead since 2004) was an astrologer, right?

    Here are two of his books:

    Cosmic cybernetics: The foundations of a modern astrology (1973)

    Sun, Earth, Man: A Mesh of Cosmic Oscillations – How Planets Regulate Solar Eruptions, Geomagnetic Storms, Conditions of Life and Economic Cycles (1989)

    What’s next for the “skeptics”, tea leaves and entrails?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s