Design a site like this with
Get started

Professor Valentina Zharkova Climate Change as it Relates to Solar Cycles

Professor Valentina Zharkova has a paper that is soon to be published regarding Climate Change from the prespective of solar cycles.

We grew up being taught that our Sun has an 11 year cycle. Many aspects of nature are linked to this 11 year cycle, for exmple the tent caterpillers in my home region that explode in population in corrolation to this 11 year solor cycle.

Valentina Zharkova is a Professor of Mathematics at Northumbria University, with a PhD in Astro Physics. I have listened to previous interviews with her regarding solar cycles, solar minimums/maximums, and how theoy relate to the historical climate changes on the Earth.

In this interview she discusses her new paper regarding reduction in solar activity in the next few weeks for a National Astronomy Meeting.

The interview goes from about (17:25) to (55:47). Below I will highlight some of what I feel are the more significant statements. Afterwitch I have made a few footnotes for further sourcing and reference.

(17:25) Intro to Professor Zharkova
Professor of Mathematics at Northumbria University, PhD in Astro Physics.

Published paper regarding reduction in Solar activity for a National Astronomy Meeting.

(20:13) Richie Allen -“Is the science settled on carbon emissions?”

(20:20) Zharkova – “No. It is not settled at all. Most of the leading scientists that do real research, they object this increase of the temperature made by the human acknowledges. We can name Akasofu (1) that was the Director of Space Institution in Alaska. He published paper in 2010 showing that the temperature increase is the recovery from ice age. It’s base line is slightly increasing. But such increase is according to solar minimum, solar maximum this has occurred.”

(21:00) Zharkova “This increase no way was related to any human made effects.”

(21:10) Zharkova “Our new paper says increase does exist. But the Earth had the last 120,000 years we had 60 such increases and decreases. And Earth happily survived. As we are still here.”

(21:35) Zharkova – “So it is not settled!”

(22:03) Richie Allen – “So, you believe there is an increase in temperature, but it is down to the fact that it is still emerging from the most recent ice age?”

(22:12) Zharkova – “Yea. This paper which came this week, and press release will be next week, explaining why the temperature increases. And this increase every 2000 years. So this is the super grand cycle with the temperature slowly increasing and decreasing.

(22:36) Zharkova -“So, last minimum of this temperature was during the Maunder Minimum (2) Now the Earth recovering from this Maunder Minimum, slowly increasing the baseline temperature. But temperature still increases when you have solar activity when we have maximum, and decreases when we have minimum. So this happens normally on top of this baseline oscillations.

(23:00) Explanation of Maunder Minimum (2).

(23:23) Zharkova – “We need to separate what’s happening on Sun form what’s happening on the Earth. “

(23:42) Zharkova – “This Grand Solar Minimum, which starts next year, will last for another 33 years.”

(23:55) Zharkova – “There are no sun spots on the sun, really low activity for 6 solar cycles. This reduces radiance that comes to the earth during the maximum solar activity. Because we did not have a maximum at that time (between 1645 and 1715). So much less radiance came, and temperatures became much cooler. The Thames river was freezing … This is what happened in 17 century during the Maunder Minimum.”

(24:25) Zharkova – “… We calculated in the paper which was published in Nature Scientific Reports in 2015, we discovered that similar grand minimums is coming from 2020 to 2053. It is upon us, literally. We live in very historic time. And the temperature again will decrease. But only for 3 cycles … And now solar activity shows the signs of decrease. We have less sun spots. And this decrease will be decrease Solar cycle (3) 25 we just entered. And Solar Cycle 26 in 11 years, will be very very low. Basically like it was in Maunder. So in this time we will not have much irradiance. And the temperature will be slightly reduced.”

(25:28) Zharkova – “We don’t know how much. For Maunder Minimum(16th-17 century) they calculated reduction average temperature on the Earth was about 8 degrees celsius (46 degrees fahrenheit). So maybe the degrees will be half the degrees. It is just a rough guess.” (Zharkova is guessing that our global temperature will decrease about 4 degrees Celsius, or 23 degress F) over the next 33 years).

(26:05) Zharkova – “So what will be the consequences on the Earth and other planets? We will not have enough solar radiance. But that is probably not the main factor. What we mostly do not have, we will not have strong magnetic field which shields the planets, including Earth from cosmic rays. So we have a lot of cosmic rays coming to the Earth, which we know create the clouds and reduce the temperatures. Plus what we will also have when the magnetic fields of the Sun decrease, probably activity on the planets (quakes?), volcanos. We will live through the next 30 years and see what happens.

(27:08) Zharkova – “The magnetic field is a very strong shield for all the planets protecting us from the cosmic strangers, cosmic rays. The shield will disappear.

(28:38) Richie Allen – “One of the things the climate change proponents want to do, they want all of us to commit to keeping our homes at 19 degrees celsius (66 degrees fahrenheit), which is going to be a big problem for senior citizens … You say it’s going to get really cold. They say it’s going to get warm.”

(29:27) Zharkova – “This is complete hypocrisy from these guys that claim that climate change come form overheating. Because if it is global warming, we should not have this (wealth) of the very cold weather. You cannot say this is warming if the temperature is freezing. So this is hypocrisy. This is not truth.”

(30:04) Zharkova – “If temperature increased I would never recommend anyone to put your temperature down, to get cold, to get flu… You are not saving the environment. You need to save yourself. “

(30:54) Richie Allen – “So food shortages is a massive problem if you are right if solar activity causes a snap cold period for 30, 40 or 50 years you can’t grow the staples?”

(32:18) Richie Allen – “Let me ask you a question … Why are you so certain that the Sun’s solar activity will decrease?”

(35:15) Richie Allen – “You must not be the only academic that knows this?”

(35:25) Zharkova – “There are quite a few of us that combine our effort and produce the conference… All the African countries, they take your work much more seriously, and middle latitude countries. They are building all these factories, producing these vegetables, and they are planning to make big business on Europeans, North Americans, and others. Because, they do understand. It’s not in our control. We cannot control the Sun .

(39:20) Tweeter question – “Why do you think China is buying vast swaths of land in Africa? Because the Chinese know about the Grand Solar Minimum?”

(39:27) Zharkova- All these other countries are recognizing the science. The western countries re in denial.

(40:43) Richie Allen – “This is the Moundor Minimum. Back in the 17th century we had a mini ice age… It’s not just happened that one time. It’s happened on other occasions as well, predating the industrial revolution.

(43:11) Richie Allen – “I don’t believe CO2 is driving climate change. One of the main reasons I don’t believe that is because the IPCC climate models don’t even mention solar activity. Which to me … it just makes no sense to me. “

(44:57) Zharkova – “If you follow the method I do, it is a solid mathematical method process.:

(45:50) Zharkova – “There is research about CO2 and water, by Professor Selby from Imperial College. He’s the temperature person on the Earth …

(46:18) Zharkova – There is no measurable increase of CO2. We can not measure, we cannot separate which comes from the natural sources and which comes from the humans, because the amount is so tiny. There is no instrument that could secure a measure, so the error bars of the measurements are much higher than what ever they measure.

This proves that if the method is wrong, and the error bar measurement is higher than itself, the measurement, it means that you cannot trust the measurements. This is the basic, classical statistics. ”
(47:43) Richie Allen – “You said something just a second ago. That the amount of CO2 created by human beings is negligible when it’s compared to the CO2 produced nature.

(47:59) Richie Allen – “I remember a lecture given by Ian Plimer (4), a very respected geologist… He gave a brilliant lecture to Parliament back in 2009… He said we’ve been sequestering carbon in the sea, for millennia, in the rocks, and its been coming out of the volcanoes. We can’t even quantify the volcanoes on the sea bed. So, the CO2 that we are making is basically irrelevant, isn’t it?

47:30) Zharkova – “Absolutely. CO2 is the food for our trees. They all live on it. The trees, the forest consume it. It is not happening, what they say. I’m just amazed how they managed to brainwash so many people around to accept this so-called voodoo science as a real science.


(1) Syun-Ichi Akasofu
(excerpt from Wikipedia)
(赤祖父 俊一 Akasofu Shun’ichi, born December 4, 1930, Saku, Nagano, Japan) is the founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF), serving in that position from the center’s establishment in 1998 until January 2007. Previously he had been director of the university’s Geophysical Institute from 1986.

(2) Maunder Minimum.
(excerpt from Wikipedia)
The Maunder Minimum, also known as the “prolonged sunspot minimum”, is the name used for the period around 1645 to 1715 during which sunspots became exceedingly rare, as was then noted by solar observers.

The term was introduced after John A. Eddy[1] published a landmark 1976 paper in Science.[2] Astronomers before Eddy had also named the period after the solar astronomers Annie Russell Maunder (1868–1947) and her husband, Edward Walter Maunder (1851–1928), who studied how sunspot latitudes changed with time.[3] The period which the spouses examined included the second half of the 17th century.

Two papers were published in Edward Maunder’s name in 1890[4] and 1894,[5] and he cited earlier papers written by Gustav Spörer.[6] Because Annie Maunder had not received a university degree, restrictions at the time caused her contribution not to be publicly recognized.[7]

Spörer noted that, during a 28-year period (1672–1699) within the Maunder Minimum, observations revealed fewer than 50 sunspots.

This contrasts with the typical 40000 – 50000 sunspots seen in modern times (over similar 25 year sampling).[8]

Like the Homeric Minimum, Dalton Minimum and the Spörer Minimum, the Maunder Minimum coincided with a period of lower-than-average European temperatures

(3) Solar Cycle
(excerpt from Wikipedia)
The solar cycle or solar magnetic activity cycle is the nearly periodic 11-year change in the Sun’s activity (including changes in the levels of solar radiation and ejection of solar material) and appearance (changes in the number and size of sunspots, flares, and other manifestations).

They have been observed for centuries by changes in the Sun’s appearance and by terrestrial phenomena such as auroras.

The changes on the Sun cause effects in space, in the atmosphere, and on Earth’s surface. While the cycle is the dominant influence on solar activity, aperiodic fluctuations also occur.

(4) Ian Rutherford Plimer
(excerpt from Wikipedia)
(born 12 February 1946) is an Australian geologist, professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne,[1] previously a professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide,[2] and the director of multiple mineral exploration and mining companies.[3] He has published many scientific papers, six books and is one of the co-editors of Encyclopedia of Geology.[4][5] He has been a critic of both creationism and the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change.



Here is a post form 2017. It has a bunch of links regarding what has happened as a result of Fukushima. I have not read through all of them yet. But we need to keep connecting the dots.

The main picture in wrong. It does not depict how radiation moves through the ocean.


A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Global Warming

This lecture is part of Hillsdale College’s 2014 CCA series. To learn more about Hillsdale College and the CCA programs, visit

Steven F. Hayward (excerpt from Wikipidea) “Steven F. Hayward is an American author, political commentator, and policy scholar. He is a senior resident scholar at the Institute of Governmental Studies at UC Berkeley, and a visiting lecturer at Berkeley’s Boalt Hall Law School. He was previously the Ronald Reagan Distinguished Visiting Professor at Pepperdine University’s Graduate School of Public Policy …”

Has the temperature been rising? This is a lecture from 2014. You can start at 6:20 if you want to skip the intro. At 16:20: “96% of all scientist BELIEVE in climate change.” It was a review of abstracts of 11,000 science articles, emphasis on ABSTRACTS. 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on anthropocentric global warming, 32.6% endorsed global warming, 0.7% rejected it, and 0.3% were uncertain. So it is not 97% of all scientist, it is 97% of a third of scientist. (but were aren’t really even counting scientists, we are counting abstracts). Another way to summarize this would be to say that 66% of all scientist in the field have expressed no opinion on the matter.

FCC Chairman on 5G: ‘We won’t study it, regulate it, have standards for it.’

Cars are a very good example of a product that has safety standards, rigorous testing, and manufacturer liability. I had one of the first brick style cell phones back in the nineties. And, like a lot of other folks, I only recently (about 3 years ago) had a growth near my ear, and another on my upper arm that correspond to where I spent countless hours holding the phone talking. Radiation effects are longitudinal, and need years of testing for safety. 5G is going to blanket us in radiation bursts in many cases that come from every corner of a city block. With the advent of the internet of things, we will have a multitude of items inside our homes that will be also bursting with RF radiation that is more harmful than the previous 3G versions. It’s going to be geometric increase in intensity and frequency of exposure. All this with no safety testing. Insurance companies refuse to cover any RF related technology because they know the risks and future liabilities. 

(1:50) ‘We won’t wait for the standards. ‘

The Climate of Science

What has happened to science, I mean the scientific method? What are the barriers to doing real science? Is consensus science real science?

Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai addresses these issues on on the Youtube channel Logos Media II. It is posted on June 11, 2019.

Dr. Ayyadurai is an MIT Ph.D., environmentalist, scientist and activist. In this piece he talks about how science is affected by money, politics, and even university tenure.

If you want to skip the introduction you can start at 23:00 minutes. In the introduction you will learn that Dr. Ayyadurai invented e-mail (no joke) and is running for public office.

(23:25) Academics “… are basically prostitutes for what ever grants are available”

(23:50) “The fake news behind the fake news is really fake science.”

(25:00) “The real scientists have been filtered out starting around the 60’s and 70’s, and you have a bunch of lemmings called academics. They get rid of the real smart guys, people that want to raise hell because a scientist is ultimately a revolutionary. Science is always pushing the edges. Rarely do you have great scientist supporting the status quo. So they have gotten rid of those people.”

(26:30) Truth by consensus. Keep out descanting opinions.

(28:20) What is the scientific method?

(32:20) What has happened with climate change? “None of the models match reality” If a model mimics reality then it should always have a consistent prediction.”

(32:55) The climate change nonsense. There are 40 different models for the ice melting from the arctic. “That’s not science. That’s called indeterminate.” “Same with the 120 models they have for how CO2 will effect temperature. Again, 120 different models.” “They people that are climate scientists . By the way there is no field called climate science. “

In order for Academics (ie. Professors) to get tenure, they must produce research papers that get peer reviewed. Research depends on grant money. Successful papers need to be peer reviewed and then sited by other researchers and articles. This breeds consensus science, not real science.

Universities and professors depend on grant money and will not allow anything to get in the way of their needed cash flow.

“Climate Collusion?” and NOAA.

A new article at American Free Press dated June 14, 2019 talks about how NOAA now admits that a number of their service air monitoring stations register significantly higher temperatures do to being set in areas close to concrete, asphalt and their heat absorbing materials.

Here is the address of if this article: