After studying full-disc images of the sun’s magnetic field, Professor Valentina Zharkova of Northumbria University and colleagues, discovered that the sun’s dynamo is actually made of two components – coming from different depths inside the sun.
The interaction between these two magnetic waves either amplifies solar activity or damps it down. Professor Zharkova’s observations suggest we are due for a prolonged period of low solar activity.
Professor Valentina Zharkova:
We will see it from 2020 to 2053, when the three next cycles will be very reduced magnetic field of the sun. Basically what happens is these two waves, they separate into the opposite hemispheres and they will not be interacting with each other, which means that resulting magnetic field will drop dramatically nearly to zero. And this will be a similar conditions like in Maunder Minimum.
What will happen to the Earth remains to be seen and predicted because nobody has developed any program or any models of terrestrial response – they are based on this period when the sun has maximum activity — when the sun has these nice fluctuations, and its magnetic field [is] very strong. But we’re approaching to the stage when the magnetic field of the sun is going to be very, very small.
She suggests it could be a repeat of the so-called Maunder Minimum – a period in the 17th century with little solar activity that may have influenced a cooling on Earth.
Whatever we do to the planet, if everything is done only by the sun, then the temperature should drop similar like it was in the Maunder Minimum. At least in the Northern hemisphere, where this temperature is well protocoled and written. We didn’t have many measurements in the Southern hemisphere, we don’t know what will happen with that, but in the Northern hemisphere, we know it’s very well protocoled. The rivers are frozen. There are winters and no summers, and so on.
So we only hope because these Maunder Minima will be shorter, the Maunder Minimum of the 17th century was about 65 years, the Maunder Minimum which we expect will be lasting not longer than 30-35 years.
Of course things are not the same as they were in the 17th century – we have a lot more greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. And it will be interesting to see how the terrestrial and the solar influences play out.
Solar activity has a direct impact on Earth’s cloud cover
The solar wind affects cosmic rays which affect clouds. Even if the earth were shown to have warmed, how do you know this didn't account for it, not CO2? But it is predicted the sun will have less activity in the future.
Below is shown the Rome airport Stevenson screen where they take temperature measurements to monitor global warming. This is not a typical. Also shown is the Burbank airport temperature station. Note the thermometer is surrounded by asphalt and subject to jet wash at 500°F in both official temperature recording stations.
The fact that this is how they are monitoring the surface temperature indicates the lack of science in the whole field.
Fourth photographs and other arguments against believing the predictions of warming see https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-20/global-warming-hysteria-record-heat-vanishing-sunspots-co2-lawsuits
the early Antarctic explorers century ago were able to start their land voyage disembarking from ice cutters hundreds of miles further south than modern icebreakers can set expeditions now.
Given all the evidence (for example the thermometer placements) that the surface data and all the old data is bogus these results seem harder fake and thus pretty good evidence it may have been warmer and certainly wasn't much colder a century ago or more.
The first independent audit found all kinds of ridiculous mistakes in the temperature data, all of course favoring the global warming hypothesis. For example various temperatures are off by 25°C higher than any plausible temperature.
Nobel laureate physicist lays out a detailed case why the claims of climate change even if true would be less than expected by noise. https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/nature/global-warming-is-all-fake-nobel-laureate-says-its-just-a-religion/?fbclid=IwAR1ILQ6jibefXba7-1kSe_-pu6JDsss2va4aG_vet9DT4tw5IboVMjQVkJU#.WaQQaNDTqDc.facebook
Scientists have reported evidence that the ocean circulation is weakening now and similarly weakened at the last Little Ice Age supporting the hypothesis that we are going into another Little Ice Age. In any case the ocean circulation is likely if it weakens to cool the northern hemisphere. https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-11/tuoh-oci112318.php
The fact check article doesn't address any of the claims in the target statement except perhaps the delingpole link, So it clearly doesn't challenge the target statement's assertion of fake data. That there is in fact temperature fraud going on is made absolutely clear in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gh-DNNIUjKU&feature=youtu.be
where Tony Heller gives a 50 minute talk. Among other things he shows old newspaper articles that make absolutely clear that a cooling. From The 50s to the 70s has been erased from the historical record. There has been similar manipulation in the sea level data. Furthermore this erasure was the "hide the decline" from Climategate contradicting another claim of the factcheck article that Climategate wasn't a real conspiracy. They move the data, then they constructed the hockey stick by ignoring their data is inconsistent with the fake data. And they talked about in emails.
The earths temperature predictions depend on computer models of the entire Earth's atmosphere (and really should include the deep oceans too.) This is an inherently complex system, chaotic, that we are nowhere near able to predict With any reliability for any length of time
Historically over thousands or millions of years there has always been substantial climate variation. Recent changes don't suggest any particular novel movement. There is therefore no way to predict from them which way it will move next.
As could be expected from the title which is about talking points for convincing cliimate skeptics rather than discussing science, this refutation doesn't discuss any of the evidence presented that the data is fraudulent nor does it even site even once its main author Tony Heller. You can't refute an argument without citing the main people arguing for and responding to their claims. All this propaganda does is cite the very people committing fraud to claim my authority that they're not committing fraud. It doesn't answer all of the evidence presented on this diagram and especially on Tony Heller's webpage.