Today, the Space and Science Research Center, (SSRC) in Orlando, Florida announces that it has confirmed the recent web announcement of NASA solar physicists that there are substantial changes occurring in the sun's surface. The SSRC has further researched these changes and has concluded they will bring about the next climate change to one of a long lasting cold era.
|Between 1645 and 1715 sunspots were rare. It was also a time when the Earth's northern hemisphere chilled dramatically
See also: NASA's Long Range Solar Forecast
SOTT has some doubts about the authenticity of the outfit offering this "warning." That is not to say that the warning itself is in question. If you read the NASA report, you notice that the main difference is the predicted timing. So, whether or not it happens in this coming sun cycle or the next one doesn't affect the fact that the experts are saying it is going to happen!
If you check this page
that tells you about this "research center", you will read:
'Headquartered in Orlando, Florida, the Space and Science Research Center (SSRC) is the leading science and engineering research company internationally, that specializes in the analysis of and planning for climate changes based upon the "Relational Cycle Theory."'
What is "Relational Cycle Theory"? The site explains it this way:
1) There exists a family of solar activity cycles that has a profound and direct influence on the Earth's climate.
(2) These cycles are 'relational cycles' since their effects can be experienced or 'related' to during one or two human lifetimes.
(3) There is a "Centennial Cycle" of 90-100 years duration, which manifests itself with solar activity minimums and associated low temperatures with episodes lasting a few years to 1-2 decades.
(4) There is a "Bi-Centennial Cycle" of about 206 years that is the most powerful of the relational cycles and has significant effects on the climate of the Earth lasting many decades resulting in the most extreme variations in solar activity and in the Earth's temperatures.
(5) These cycles are correlated strongly to all past major temperature lows.
(6) There is remarkable regularity and hence the predictability of these oscillations, such that the theory may be a powerful tool in forecasting of major temperature and climatic cycles on Earth, many decades in advance.
(7) There may be other relational cycles of shorter duration accounting for lesser solar and climatic events which may be revealed in subsequent research.
However, these are well known
as the Gleissberg and deVries-Suess solar cycles (whose resonances explain
the Dansgaard-Oeschger events
- ice rafting).
Then, there is this statement:
"All records of sunspot counts and other proxies of solar activity going back 6,000 years clearly validates our own findings that when we have sunspot counts lower then 50 it means only one thing - an intense cold climate, globally."
There are no sunspot records going back 600 years, let alone 6000 years. They only date from the time of Galileo and his first telescope. Even the proxy records (DC14 records in tree rings and Beryllium-10 from ice cores) don't tell us how many sunspots there were, though these records are proxies for solar activity and a simple model may predict sunspots.
Although the NASA report makes a prediction on sunspot activity in the next two cycles, it does not predict the effect on climate. It should also be noted that John Casey makes no argument as to what physical process would actually cool the earth's climate. A correlation is not a physical connection. The theory is that the sun's magnetic field strength increases, affecting the earth's magnetic field and diverting cosmic rays which would otherwise strike the upper atmosphere, causing clouds to form and this would then cool the planet. But oddly he doesn't mention this as a causal mechanism, nor any causal mechanism for that matter which would explain why the earth would cool in the upcoming cycle. Perhaps it's just a direct reduction in insolation. If he were a climate expert he would have given this background and offered an explanation.
What exactly, we ask, is unique about this "research"?
Even the Anthropogenic Global Warming skeptics over at Climate Audit have their doubts. As Leif Svalgaard, a solar physicist turned computer programmer from Stanford University in California, says
"The 'Space and Science Research Center' and John Casey should not be relied on for valid research. I know of Mr. Casey and have checked his credentials and they are not legitimate. He has tried to recruit even me into his band of 'experts'. I would not place any value on the ramblings of the press release."
So, again, if it were not for the fact that the information about the solar cycle is backed up by NASA, we would not be carrying this piece. As it is, we don't know who these people are, what their real expertise might be, and whether or not they are legitimate in any way. It could be someone on the "inside" trying to get info out to the public, or someone on the inside setting up a straw man panic to knock down. So, on the off chance that this is a COINTELPRO psy-op, we thought we would keep it in the database for possible future reference.
The bottom line still is: something strange is going on "out there".