Solar Cycle 25

Welcome to one of the most interesting and fascinating climate information sites you are ever likely to come across. I'm lucky enough to have chosen a name that "does what it says on the label", in that it relates to Solar Cycle 25 (SC25).

Firstly I need to explain to some of you the term “Solar Cycle”. In short, it’s the term applied to the life span of a single cycle of our Sun’s constantly changing energy output (Solar Output – often described as Total Solar Irradiance). Each cycle can vary in its intensity and as you can see below the intensity can remain at a low or high level over several decades involving multiple successive cycles.

Using the following display we can see that the Sun seems to be uneven in its distribution of Solar Output over time. From about 1630 to about 1730 the surface of the Sun was relatively calm. This period is called the Maunder Minimum, and is often called the Little Ice Age.

There have been many graphs created using Solar Irradiance data, but my personal favourite can be found on Junk Science (data from To demonstrate and highlight three specific climatic periods, I have used an overlay onto the original graph. The first period I have already mentioned above (Maunder Minimum). The second period, from about 1790 to about 1830, we can see yet another occurrence of low Sun Spot activity, and the result of this was just the same as the first period, another Cool Earth, this period is called the Dalton Minimum, and I mention this period in particular as Solar Cycle 25 could be the start of similar conditions on the Sun from about 2019.

Solar Irradiance 1611-2001 with Overlay
Solar Irradiance Graph

From about 1951 we can also see “The Modern Day” warming that shows we experienced a historically very active Sun for 50-60 years, and that was the real cause of our recent “Global Warming”, and NOT “Man Made CO2” .

Whenever I show the above displays to people they seem shocked that the information about Solar Cycles and “Climate Change” has not come to their attention before. It is as if those displays have somehow been swept under the carpet and lost and yet the work reconstructing Solar Cycle information since 1611 has been there in the public domain for decades.

There have been many misunderstandings and many more misconceptions as to how the recent climate change (Modern Day Warming) on our world has happened. But when you start to realize that our world is just one of several planets in the solar system that fall within the Sun's corona it’s not surprising that when the Sun is very active we are not the only planet that feels a little warmer. There have been several observations concerning the melting ice caps on Mars at the same time as our own recent warming, and I have no doubt that in times of a “Calm Sun” other planets including our own have suffered with cooler conditions.

When it comes to our own understanding and reasoning for the weather I can only think that there is a psychological process involved as to how we "humans" take in information. Whenever we hear someone say “I have never known anything like that before” people generally accept the remark as a literal truth, and that has a lot to do with how we have misunderstood the reality of “climate change”.

Some of the misdiagnosis that has taken place amongst the scientific community comes down to plain good old fashioned “ignorance”, in that, if you ask an astronomer for an analysis for sea level change you would probably have a different explanation to that which you would have been given if you had asked the same question of a geologist. What I am saying is, the people who interpreted the data for the recent "Climate Change" made their conclusions of "cause and effect" without all of the variables “weighted” correctly.

The main proponent of human caused climate change is an astrophysicist not a climate expert. Indeed there are very few who specialise in climatology as a discrete discipline and those who do are fully aware of the limitations of current knowledge.

The Sun’s influence on climate has been dismissed to such an extent that there is either a conspiracy taking place within Governments or the people concerned suffer from “cognitive dissonance” i.e. the people who made the analysis have made up their minds to such an extent that it is impossible for them to look at any other alternative possibilities beyond “Man Made CO2” as a cause of the recent observed warming.

At the time of the original “Global Warming” research there was no real specialist area for climate change analysis. There was a “hotch potch” of different scientific fields coming together, and that’s why I say the “weighting” of the “Sun” as a contributing variable is not correct. The interpretation of data was conducted from the Hadley Centre, a body that makes it's conclusions from the discipline of meteorology in the Earth’s atmosphere. So, at the very start of the work the interpretation of "cause and effect" is set in a bias towards the Earth’s atmosphere being responsible for all of the climatic changes and therefore what they think they find in their results (a warmer atmosphere) is assumed (incorrectly) to be a result of a change in the atmosphere (more CO2). In fact more CO2 is a consequence of a warmer atmosphere.

Although I was not privy to being involved with that work, I can only think that it was the Hadley Centre that went on to produce that spurious set of results to advise the Government. The history of science and politics shows other instances of inverting cause and effect so this is not the first time that scientific phenomena have been misdiagnosed at a very high level.

If CO2 warms the air and an active solar cycle follows then that would imply that the Hadley Centre believes that changes in the Earth’s atmosphere induce changes on the sun. Clearly a silly conclusion, but there it is.

The correct interpretation using the Solar data as the real cause would have settled this argument several years ago but, as time has gone on, conspiracy and corruption appear to have been tied to the mast at a very high level and what has made the situation far worse is that “Climate Skeptics” have been refused a voice to challenge the so called consensus of opinion of “Man Made” Climate Change.

I am therefore grateful for the internet to be able to send out this message to you all.

Some very important lessons will be learned from this episode. The most important one being that those governments and the media must never again continue to fund spurious scientific research. I.e. if you pay someone enough money they will tell you what you want to hear.

The way we all understand climate change will shift in the next few years as global cooling continues to take place in spite of the increase in the level of CO2.

Solar Cycle 25 (SC25) will be most remarkable in that the Earth will experience a switch to a much cooler climate then we have become accustomed to in the last 50-60 years thus proving beyond any doubt that CO2 is NOT a significant driver of our climate. So, get ready to embrace Solar Cycle 25, it’s coming whether you like it or not.

I predict that by the end of this Solar Cycle (24), at about 2019 we will observe the official end of global warming and see the official recognition of global cooling.

Regrettably the world’s Governments, who represent our so called “intelligent” race, will do untold damage to the world’s economies in their pursuit of lower levels of CO2 emissions in the name of a futile attempt to reduce a temperature that is controlled by the Sun.

Ironically all ending with what I predict will be the start to another Dalton Minimum.
Articles by Climate Realists and Topics

» Recently used highlighted

Useful links
  • » News articles may contain quotes, these are copyright to the respective publication which will be stated, along with a link to the source article where available.
  • » If you feel your copyright has been violated please contact us and the article will be removed or amended at your request.
Site Details
  • » Launched 15 May 2009
  • » Website Design by Mr Zippy
Climate Depot Feed
  • » Feed Error