• Home
  • Current News
  • Rationale for the SSRC Prediction of Devastation to Global Agriculture within Ten Years

Rationale for the SSRC Prediction of Devastation to Global Agriculture within Ten Years

Written by Space and Science Research Corporation

The rationale for the crop loss prediction in SSRC Press Release 2-2015 is as follows:

1. Recent trends have been affirmed the predicted shift of global climate from the past era of global warming to a new period of intense global cooling. This climate shift was also defined in detail in the December 10, 2014 Global Climate Status Report (GCSR), an SSRC publication, and the schedule for the next phase of global temperature decline in the November 20, 2014, SSRC Press Release 4-2014. brutal winter cold

2. The ongoing reduction in energy output from the Sun has been confirmed including: a. NASA and the Royal Observatory of Belgium verified this month (April) that the current 11-year solar cycle has recently peaked and that the second of two small peaks at the top of this cycle was the stronger of the two. Importantly, sunspot records going back to 1750 shows this stronger second sunspot peak only occurs in a long term declining period of solar activity just prior to an historic cold epoch.

Even though the overall solar cycle was weak, this strong secondary solar peak was brief, yet powerful resulting in a temporary spike in global temperatures 2014-2015. b. NASA and the broader solar physics community have acknowledged that this current solar cycle (number 24) is the weakest in 100 years, as was correctly predicted by the SSRC. See SSRC Press Release 1-1015.

It is expected to weaken further in the next two 11 year solar cycles, number 25 and 26. The SSRC believes this next cold epoch which has already begun, will last until the 2040’s and will produce the same global crop devastation as the Dalton Minimum (1793-1830). The following Figure 1, depicts the SSRC predicted decline in solar activity over the next two decades with the lowest level of sunspots and global temperatures in 2031.  

casey fig 1

c. A comparison of the decline in the Sun’s energy output in cycle 24 with the most representative previous solar cycle, number 5, provides the best means of understanding the ill-effects of the coming cold epoch especially the effects on agricultural production.
 
The last two times this kind of cycle peak activity existed was prior to the cold bottom of the “Little Ice Age,” (1615 to 1745) and then later at the start of the cold Dalton Minimum. In the latter cold period, thousands of Americans froze and starved to death in what one historian called the “the world’s last great subsistence crisis.”
 
The SSRC believes the impact on US and global agricultural systems from the current cold era will be similar to the Dalton Minimum and will produce a global subsistence crisis worse than that era, because so many people worldwide no longer grow their own food.
 
3. A new round of major volcanic activity worldwide has begun as predicted by the SSRC, including major eruptions in Iceland (Eyafjallajokull, and Bardarbunga), Chile (PuyehueCordon and Calbuco), Indonesia (Merapi, Sangeang Api, and Sinabung), Central America (Poas, Fuego, Colima, Popocatepetl) just to name some of those of most concern.
 
Though the mechanism is not understood, the correlation between the worst volcanic eruptions and these deep cold eras (“solar hibernations” or “solar minimums”) is quite strong.
 
These eruptions make the cold epochs and crop damage worse as did the eruption of Mt. Tambora in April 1815 during the last hibernation. The global dust and aerosol cloud of that eruption made the already cold epoch even more difficult and cold.
 
In the USA, 1816 was described as “the year without a summer,” that saw snow in the middle of August with massive crop losses.
 
4. A new trend of increasingly early starts to and greater cold depth of winters has begun to produce a trend of snow and temperature records being broken that are over 100 years old. This is taking place at the same time the Sun reaches its weakest output in 100 years. As the Sun’s energy output drops, as measured by long term reductions in sunspot count, so does global temperatures.
 
This developing trend of more arduous record setting winters was evidenced in the snows that crippled the NE US in October 2011 (“Snowtober”) and October 2013 where tens of thousands of livestock were buried and died in massive snows in South Dakota. Winter 2013-2014 was called “brutal” by the media.
 
Not to be outdone, winter 2014-2015 was also a record setting winter for much of the northern and eastern USA, including a 7ft snow event in Buffalo and a record setting cold and snow for New England especially, Massachusetts and its largest city, Boston.
 
5. Of particular concern is the added trend toward cold wet springs as seen in 2013, 2014 and now in 2015 which caused spring planting to be delayed. Even though crop output was at record levels during prior years thanks to good summer weather, the trend is of great concern in light of the continued drop in the Sun’s energy output by which the Earth and crops get their warmth. Spring plantings will become increasingly more difficult as the 2020’s and early 2030’s arrive.
 
6. Other trends pointing to a shift to global cooling have underscored this SSRC prediction of imminent damage to the global agricultural system including:
 
a. There has been no effective growth in global temperatures for 18 years through early 2014. Global warming no longer exists. Aside from the predictable solar driven 2014-2015 temperature spike, the oceans began to cool in 2003 and the atmosphere in 2007.
 
b. The polar regions of the planet are now getting colder. The new trend of a colder Arctic Circle and Antarctic Circle is firmly in place. The Arctic has been cooling since 2010. Sea ice melt in the Arctic bottomed out in 2007 after decades of reduction and is now growing again. The Antarctic continues to stay in record cold temperature ranges. Sea ice around the Antarctic set an all time record for extent in 2014.
 
c. A track of contiguous US temperatures by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) demonstrates a long term decline is in place for the winter and spring planting season.
See Figure 2 and 3 below:
casey fig 2
This chart and Figure 3 below which displays the 12 year trend for the prime planting month of April are especially relevant to predicting a significant reduction in major US crop growing regions. Degrees F are shown on the left scale and rate of change on the right scale.
casey fig 3
 In this chart we see a -0.71 degree F declining trend per decade (blue straight line) for the period 2003-2014. Temperatures in degrees F are on the left scale and degrees C on the right scale.
 
Both winter and April crop planting declining temperature trends are expected to accelerate with the ongoing reduction in solar energy over the next two decades caused by the new solar minimum or “solar hibernation,” and rapid global temperature falloff predicted in SSRC Press Release 4-2014.
 
7. The North Atlantic Ocean has begun a rapid cooling phase in recent years as observed in the declining temperature of the North Atlantic Ocean and concurrently a record rate of heat content loss. This will likely contribute to greater stress on crops of nations in eastern Canada, northern Europe, and Russia.
 
8. Numerous other scientists have joined with the SSRC in predicting a long and potentially dangerous cold climate. A partial list is available at the SSRC web site at www.spaceandscience.net. Russian climatologists have indicated a new “Little ice Age” may have already started in 2014. Should the Russian prediction prevail over the SSRC’s prediction, then the outcome for crop losses will extend from destructive to catastrophic.
 
Read more from SSRC: www.spaceandscience.net

Comments (11)

  • Avatar

    elkcub

    |

    Correction: The author apparently multiplied the slope of the regression line by 10 to estimate the temperature decline on a decadal basis. Hence, the slope in Fig. 3 was .071 compared to my .074, which was pretty close. R^2 = .05, indicating a predictive effectiveness of 2.6%.

    He did the same thing with the data in Figure 2 (N=18), which also produced a non-significant linear regression (Sig. = .124). R^2 = .126, for a predictive ability of 12.6%

    The data show no evidence of a statistically reliable trend.

  • Avatar

    Frozen

    |

    This articles author “space and science research corp” appears to be a one man show with credibility issues? Can anyone enlighten us?

    • Avatar

      elkcub

      |

      Although it should be obvious that a regression is almost meaningless for a sample of size N=12, I computed the linear regression for Figure 3 anyway. (Data values were read off the graph introducing minor errors.)

      As expected, the slope is not significantly different from zero (Sig. = .621); and, incidentally, it is -.074, not -.71 as claimed. In other words, the author reported an insignificant trend, AND exaggerated the negative effect by an order of magnitude.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    John,

    1) The breadth of geologic time is far greater than most people can begin to imagine. You could be 99 percent right in your calculations and that 1 percent difference could add up to thousands of years–a pin prick in time.

    2) The data is extremely noisy and depends greatly on proxies which often contain hidden assumptions. You would first have to convince me that it is possible to find a signal in the noise. Then you would have to convince me that the signal you have found indicates the impending catastrophe that you suggest.

    3) Experts will say just about anything.

    Don’t fall for the Convective Cooling Myth:
    http://wp.me/p4JijN-c9

    • Avatar

      Pat Obar

      |

      [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]John,

      1) The breadth of geologic time is far greater than most people can begin to imagine. You could be 99 percent right in your calculations and that 1 percent difference could add up to thousands of years–a pin prick in time.[/quote]

      Very good Jim and accurate!

      [quote]2) The data is extremely noisy and depends greatly on proxies which often contain hidden assumptions. You would first have to convince me that it is possible to find a signal in the noise. Then you would have to convince me that the signal you have found indicates the impending catastrophe that you suggest. [/quote]

      Jim, no one wants to convince you. You are just part of the noise!

      [quote]3) Experts will say just about anything.
      Don’t fall for the Convective Cooling Myth:
      http://wp.me/p4JijN-c9%5B/quote%5D

      Why can you never discover your own myths?

      • Avatar

        solvingtornadoes

        |

        [quote name=”Pat Obar”]Why can you never discover your own myths?[/quote]
        Let us know if you come up with anything specific and explicit.

        Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence
        http://wp.me/p4JijN-aI

        • Avatar

          Pat Obar

          |

          [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”][quote name=”Pat Obar”]Why can you never discover your own myths?[/quote]
          Let us know if you come up with anything specific and explicit.

          Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence
          http://wp.me/p4JijN-aI%5B/quote%5D

          Indeed they do!!
          Let us know if you come up with anything specific and explicit of your garbage .

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            Vagueness is a clear indication that you are pretending to understand something that, in actuality, you only believe. Humans have a very difficult time distinguishing between what they understand and what they believe.

            Only if you are extremely disciplined with respect to application of the scientific method do you have any chance of defeating the human instinct to pretend to understand what you only believe. As you demonstrate, engineers suck at this.

            For example, my theory predicts the existence of CAT. Meteorology only pretends to understand it. Follow this link for more:
            http://wp.me/p4JijN-5A

          • Avatar

            solvingtornadoes

            |

            Vagueness is a clear indication that you are pretending to understand what you only believe. Humans have a extremely difficult time distinguishing between what they understand and what they believe.

            Only if you are relentless in applications of the scientific method would you have any possibility of defeating the human instinct to pretend to understand what you only believe.

            You engineers simply don’t have the training for that.

            I have no problem explaining the origins of CAT. Meteorologists can only pretend to understand it. For more on this follow this link:
            http://wp.me/p4JijN-5A

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]Vagueness is a clear indication that you are pretending to understand what you only believe. Humans have a extremely difficult time distinguishing between what they understand and what they believe.[/quote]

            Jim I admit that you are expert on Vagueness.
            Do you have anything that physically supports your inane fantasy?

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]You engineers simply don’t have the training for that.[/quote]

            Just look, training includes crawling, walking, running, speaking, writing. correctly to others. Jim, when have you ever demonstrated any “training”

Comments are closed