Landscheidt minimum
My forecast is exclusively based on cycles of solar activity. This does not conform to the dominating trend in official science. The Third Assessment Report, published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), continues to underestimate the Sun's role in climate change: "Solar forcing is considerably smaller than the anthropogenic radiative forcings", and its "level of scientific understanding" is "very low", whereas forcing by well-mixed greenhouse gases "continues to enjoy the highest confidence level" as to its scientific understanding. The Third Report considers it "unlikely that natural forcing can explain the warming in the latter half of the 20th century." There are also frequent assertions in the literature that there was only a negligible effect of solar activity on temperature in recent decades.
If my El Niño forecast proved correct, this would be the third successful El Niño forecast in a row. The second one had a lead time of 2 years. There are other successful long-range climate forecasts exclusively based on solar activity: End of the Sahelian drought 3 years before the event; the last three extrema in global temperature anomalies; maximum in the Palmer Drought Index around 1999; extreme River Po discharges around 2001.1 etc. (Landscheidt 1983-2001). This is irreconcilable with IPCC's allegation that it is unlikely that natural forcing can explain the warming in the latter half of the 20th century. In declarations for the public, IPCC representatives stress that taxpayer's money will be used to develop better forecasts of climate change. What about making use of those that already exist, even if this means to acknowledge that anthropogenic climate forcing is not as potent as alleged.
Follow The Sun To The Landscheidt Minimum
He was a scientist that predicted the current lack of sunspot activity in cycle 24 and the prospect of much colder times ahead. The climate experts of the time predicted a cycle 24 sunspot maximum as high as those in the preceding cycles but that was not the opinion of Theodor Landscheidt.
Its not hard now to understand who won that scientific argument. A lack of sunspot activity continues through the first few months of 2009. Last year was the blankest sun in the last century and the year before was also documented in the top ten. Theodor Landscheidt was spot on in his prediction of the current lack of the activity of the sun.
His last paper would be published one year before his death in 2004, and the title of his work shows that despite all the propaganda, there never was a scientific consensus on man-made global warming. The title of Landscheidt's last paper is also his prediction: "Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming".
The research behind the paper and the prediction was completed about a decade ago, around the time that global climate computer models were predicting continued global warming for the first decade of the 21st century. A climate change outcome that becomes more absurd with each passing day.
The truth is that the predictions of Theodor Landscheidt were often correct. Using the dependable forecasts of the suns activity, based on solar cycles, made it possible for Landscheidt to correctly predict climatic phenomena well ahead of actual events.
[..] based on the strange lack of sunspot activity in the last few years, history tells us that our climate could soon get very cold. Its a prediction from the work of the scientist Theodor Landscheidt. To see if it really happens, just continue to follow the activity of the sun to what could eventually be called the Landscheidt Minimum.
