The Ice Age Cometh...

London's St. James Park frozen in 1963 (from link)

I am fascinated by the illogic of journalism as it relates to "climate science."

Recently I happened upon an article from July of 2015 about the Royal Astronomical Society (RAS) related to the energy output of the sun, sun spots, and their effect on the energy output of the sun.  Valentina Zharkova, who wrote the article says about convecting fluids (at 4,500 degrees C) inside the sun that prior models describing their behavior were incomplete.

“We found magnetic wave components appearing in pairs, originating in two different layers in the Sun’s interior. They both have a frequency of approximately 11 years, although this frequency is slightly different, and they are offset in time.  Over the cycle, the waves fluctuate between the northern and southern hemispheres of the Sun. Combining both waves together and comparing to real data for the current solar cycle, we found that our predictions showed an accuracy of 97%,” said Zharkova.

Basically what is being described are two oscillators inside the sun, each with an 11 year cycle.  The oscillators are "out of phase" which means that as time goes by the oscillations alter between being "in sync" and "out of sync."

As you can see above the two waves are in sync at each end of the chart but out of sync in the middle.

So Zharkova is saying that her model of the sun shows that sun spots are related to the interaction of these two waves.

“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.”

This, however, is just a theory based on satellite observation of magnetic waves in the sun.  From a scientific perspective we merely have to wait and see if her predictions are correct.  Certainly, at least according to the RAS article there is good reason to believe they are close (97%).

Typical of the "climate science as religion" we have articles like this by Matthew Francis: "No, Sun Spots Will Not Cause A New Ice Age."

Mr. Francis writes about why the predictions of Zharkova are irrelevant to "climate science:"

Whether or not the sunspot model is correct, it's totally unreasonable to extrapolate it to Earth's climate in the face of other models that take into account...well, everything. Real climate models include solar output (and yes, sunspots), but also carbon emissions, the El Niño and El Niña phenomena in the ocean, burning vegetation, and many other things.

So, on careful reading we see that climate models apparently have already taken into account the predictions of Zharkova's as yet unpublished research.

How could they know?

It seems unreasonable to assume that those unfamiliar with astrophysics, magnetic flow and so forth would be able to know this.  Particularly since Zharkova merely espouses a theory.

Yet the absolute certainty of climate science apparently supersedes any need for Zharkova's theory.  Based on this Zharkova would mere have to have inspect modern climate models to learn how the internals of the sun works.

Mr. Francis refers to John Timmer who writes for Ars Technica.  Timmer says it his article that "The Maunder Minimum is a fascinating area of study given that we still don't know why it happened—or enough about the internal dynamics of the Sun that drove it. But it would be nice if people would stop reading far more into these studies than is justified. If nothing else, it would save us from having to rewrite this story a third time somewhere down the line."

Wait, I thought climate science knew everything?

How can it not know about the Maunder Minimum or its effect on climate?

Isn't climate science absolutely decided (like the boiling point of water)?

Anyone who has owned or used a "green house" knows that A) you need to vent off any excess heat during the day and B) you need a heater at night so things don't freeze.

This is because no matter how wonderful your greenhouse insulating material is when you put less heat in the inside of the greenhouse gets colder.

And let's not forget that water vapor and clouds impact "global warming" far more than CO2.

The answer would really seem to be that actual science and measurable "prediction" (as opposed to hockey stick charts) will eventually win.

Of course, fifty years ago we "knew" this...

And let's not forget about the gravity of Mars and its effect on climate.  Again, I guess a quick inspection of climate models would have saved a lot of research.