A new study explains the well-known 11-year solar cycle by examining the interaction of cycles between 2 layers of the sun: one close to the surface and one deep within its convection zone.
The modeling technique is called “principal component analysis” and the researchers claim that it yields a 97% accuracy rate in solar predictions. If true, the prediction is far more frightening than the pseudoscience predictions of the Global Warming alarmists:
During Cycle 26, which covers the decade from 2030-2040, the two waves will become exactly out of synch and this will cause a significant reduction in solar activity.
“In cycle 26, the two waves exactly mirror each other – peaking at the same time but in opposite hemispheres of the Sun. Their interaction will be disruptive, or they will nearly cancel each other. We predict that this will lead to the properties of a ‘Maunder minimum’,” said Zharkova. “Effectively, when the waves are approximately in phase, they can show strong interaction, or resonance, and we have strong solar activity. When they are out of phase, we have solar minimums. When there is full phase separation, we have the conditions last seen during the Maunder minimum, 370 years ago.”
According to EnvironmentalHistory.org, a little 1 degree difference caused some pretty significant changes:
During the height of the Little Ice Age , it was in general about one degree Celsius colder than at present. The Baltic Sea froze over, as did most of the rivers in Europe. Winters were bitterly cold and prolonged, reducing the growing season by several weeks. These conditions led to widespread crop failure, famine, and in some regions population decline.
The prices of grain increased and wine became difficult to produce in many areas and commercial vineyards vanished in England. Fishing in northern Europe was also badly affected as cod migrated south to find warmer water. Storminess and flooding increased and in mountainous regions the treeline and snowline dropped. In addition glaciers advanced in the Alps and Northern Europe, overrunning towns and farms in the process.
Iceland was one of the hardest hit areas. Sea ice, which today is far to the north, came down around Iceland. In some years, it was difficult to bring a ship ashore anywhere along the coast. Grain became impossible to grow and even hay crops failed. Volcanic eruptions made life even harder. Iceland lost half of its population during the Little Ice Age.
Tax records in Scandinavia show many farms were destroyed by advancing ice of glaciers and by melt water streams. Travellers in Scotland reported permanent snow cover over the Cairngorm Mountains in Scotland at an altitude of about 1200 metres. In the Alps, the glaciers advanced and bulldozed over towns. Ice-dammed lakes burst periodically, destroying hundreds of buildings and killing many people. As late as 1930 the French Government commissioned a report to investigate the threat of the glaciers. They could not have foreseen that human induced global warming was to deal more effective with this problem than any committee ever could.
Of course, most of humanity made it through just fine. In fact, quite a lot of innovations were made and empires expanded.
Still, it may be best to look for real estate with an eye toward future value. For instance, I doubt that anyone wants to live in Canada during an ice age, “little” of not:
And on a totally unrelated note, the world’s youngest glacier is in the lower 48, forming in the shadow created by the crater of Mount St. Helens.
Ted Kavadas has 10 scary charts posted at Seeking Alpha, and they are scary indeed. The first one surprised me, showing housing starts are not rising to healthy levels as I was led to believe by the MSM, but is rather hovering at the level of historical lows.
This one, on the other hand, is no surprise as it is a topic to which I pay closer attention — the seemingly never-ending “jobless recovery”:
I recommend glancing at all 10, but brace yourself first.
It turns out that growing up poor can actually affect brain structure according to a paper published in Nature Neuroscience. A comprehensive study which considered such variables as age, sex, genetic ancestry and even parental education found a logarithmic association between income and brain surface area in children between 3 and 20 years of age.
Among children from lower income families, small differences in income were associated with relatively large differences in surface area, whereas, among children from higher income families, similar income increments were associated with smaller differences in surface area. These relationships were most prominent in regions supporting language, reading, executive functions and spatial skills; surface area mediated socioeconomic differences in certain neurocognitive abilities. These data imply that income relates most strongly to brain structure among the most disadvantaged children.
Now that is the best reason yet to undo the damage of Michelle Obama’s school lunch program instituted in the name of a war on child obesity.
A trio of views and news this week.
National Review Online takes apart the liberal’s attack on Judge Hanen’s injunction:
There was a bunch of boring legal stuff “blah blah blah Scalia blah Supreme Court blah blah …” wrapping up with this:
Reading through the professors’ letter one finds a total lack of description of the actual case they put so much stock into. Instead of case law or statutory and regulatory provisions, they mostly cite each other’s law journal articles. It is the work of immigration anarchists in academia, and not Judge Hanen’s 123-page opinion, that should be seen as “deeply flawed.”
The New American states the obvious:
A mix of history and conjecture, with this money quote:
The showdown between the 26 plaintiff states and the Obama executive branch in New Orleans on April 17 may not settle this issue for good. Whichever side loses may be expected to appeal to the Supreme Court. And in addition to what the federal courts may decide to do, other questions include whether Congress will continue to allow the president to rule by decree in violation of the U.S. Constitution, and if states exercise the authority they possess to protect their own borders.
Meanwhile, Journal.US pins some leftist hope on a related ruling made this week by the aforementioned New Orleans Court:
In what seems to be an improbable coincidence, the same 5th Circuit court, on the same day, issued a ruling on another immigration executive order case. This decision concerned Obama’s first executive action on immigration, announced in 2012 called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Certain people who came to the United States as children and meet several guidelines may request consideration of deferred action for a period of two years, subject to renewal. They are also eligible for work authorization. The conservative-leaning bench dismissed an objection to DACA because it found that the state of Mississippi, which brought the lawsuit did not have the legal standing to sue the federal government.
This decision indicates that the Obama administration may yet be successful in continuing with the executive orders of 2014.
In a lengthy decision, Judge W. Eugene Davis opined that neither the agents nor Mississippi “demonstrated the concrete and particularized injury required to give them standing to maintain this suit.”
But of course the best news and one that should cost some people their jobs (but won’t) and perhaps even their license to practice law (but certainly won’t) is covered by Politico:
“This Court expects all parties, including the Government of the United States, to act in a forthright manner and not hide behind deceptive representations and half-truths,” Hanen wrote in one of two orders he issued Tuesday night. “Whether by ignorance, omission, purposeful misdirection, or because they were misled by their clients, the attorneys for the Government misrepresented the facts.”
… Hanen’s order imposed an unusual sanction for what he deemed to be the government’s misdeeds: a complete disclosure of who was involved in drafting the March 3 advisory about the three-year grants, including the details of when and how they were involved. The judge’s demand intrudes into material the Justice Department would ordinarily consider privileged from disclosure under several different legal theories.
However, Hanen — a George W. Bush appointee — ordered all such information preserved and said that if it is privileged it should be produced to him “in camera” for private review.
Here’s hoping Hanen will actually get enough material to hang some crooked lawyers. Or at least severely censure. Then maybe the Department of “Justice” will quite lying.
Well let’s see … a WH National Security Council spokesman poo-pooed the CNN report, calling it speculation about a previously disclosed breach.
“Any such activity is something we take very seriously. In this case, as we made clear at the time, we took immediate measures to evaluate and mitigate the activity,” said spokesman Mark Stroh.
Really? Because it turns out that to access the White House servers, the Russian hackers used an exploit from an earlier hack in which the State Department’s network was breached.
My oh my. Where were the evaluation and mitigation activities then? And have these so-called activities increased in efficacy over time?
The White House does not believe its classified systems, which contain national security information, were compromised, White House Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes told CNN in an interview.
Color me cynical, but I am not convinced.
Background: Junk science, engineered to support job killing, far left legislation that places draconian rules on the use of diesel. A respected university that loads a panel with ideologues like Roosevelt packing the Supreme Court with leftist New Deal supporters. One scientist that didn’t toe the line:
As the environmentalist Left pushed new, job-killing regulations in the interests of “public health,” Dr. Enstrom took his own look at the data and determined that the health threat from diesel emissions was being wildly overstated. As he looked further, he discovered that the lead researcher pushing the new regulations actually possessed a fraudulent degree, purchased from “Thornhill University,” a shady, long-distance diploma mill. Moreover, members of the state’s “scientific review panel” tasked with evaluating the science had in some cases overstayed term limits by decades. At least one was a known ideological radical. (He was a member of the infamous “Chicago Seven.”)
Dr. Enstrom did what a scientist should do. He exposed public corruption, called out fake scientific credentials, and worked to save California from onerous and unnecessary regulations.
So UCLA fired him. After more than 30 years on the job.
It took two and a half years, but with help from the ACLJ, Dr. Enstrom sued UCLA and won:
In 2012, the ACLJ filed suit on behalf of Dr. Enstrom alleging that UCLA officials unlawfully terminated his appointment as a Researcher in violation of his First Amendment rights and mishandled tens of thousands of dollars of his funding. Following multiple unsuccessful attempts to have the lawsuit dismissed and an extensive discovery process, which included the depositions of several key UCLA officials, the UC Regents agreed to a settlement of the case on terms extremely favorable to Dr. Enstrom. Not only did the Regents agree to pay Dr. Enstrom $140,000, but they also have effectively rescinded the termination, agreeing to Dr. Enstrom’s use of the title “Retired Researcher” (as opposed to acknowledgment as a non-titled terminated employee) and his continued access to UCLA resources he previously enjoyed during his appointment.
The university’s justification for firing Dr. Enstrom in the first place?
University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) refused to reappoint an environmental health sciences professor, stating that his controversial research failed to accord with the department’s “mission.”
He dared to put forth a view that did not fit with the view of his employers. Politics over science, in the tradition of the Church’s persecution of Galileo. Shame!
Perhaps a by-product of the declining workforce participation rate? But wait, we’re supposed to be focused on the rising employment rate and ignore the fact that more and more people have completely given up looking for a job (not to mention the massive underemployment problem).