The Grand Solar Minimum Discussions

This week, American scientist Lee Wheelbarger joined David Dubyne (Adapt2030 YT Channel) to have a very thorough discussion and overview of the next Grand Solar Minimum from 2015-2032.

Lee and David discuss their background in the first few minutes of video #1 in case you are unfamiliar.
The new natural phenomenon of purple lightening being seen worldwide is mention in this first episode.
A google search "purple lightening bolt" select images gives 100s of results:








I have only watched the first video and I am going to work all day so I do not have more content to add, but may later.

Our Sun has been studied since Galileo made his telescope and it has cycles of high & low output but Climate change scientists somehow "ignore" this data from centuries....

a reply to: manuelram16 due to the fact that these scientists would return to complete irrelevance if the real truth came to light....spotted Al would have to sell one of his huge mansions....and his jet...

a reply to: Granite

What's with the audio? His voice sounds artificial.

From what I have read, predicting the grand solar minimum being now is just as reliable as Jesus coming back now.

They are not even sure what actually causes the grand solar minimum and actually when it does occur there are some strong and week minimums that occur. You have to consider the earth's interaction with the sun, the earth gives off more energy when the sun lowers it's output. We have made it through many of these grand solar minimums from what I have read and life is still here.

Apologies for not having time right now to watch the video. Found this which may be helpful?

This indicates that, while the global response depends on the magnitude of the solar forcing change, the sensitivity at regional scales is larger and does not scale with the magnitude of the solar forcing. Thus, significant regional responses can be triggered by small changes in the solar forcing.

iopscience.iop.org...

They are talking about how a solar minimum would affect the current climate models and while the article is tough reading, this nugget struck me as being relevant. It would indicate that localized areas would be affected more than the entire globe, if I understand it correctly?

We still don't completely understand all the other factors like changes in ocean currents and how the heating and cooling of the magma under the earths crust interplays with decreased solar activity, so a VERY complicated topic!!
Right now with a decrease magnetic field? it's everyone take a guess if we're going to see a re-run of the maunder minimum.

Good topic tho!

Purple lightning (not lightening) is often captured and not a new phenomenon as due to the spectrum of light being filtered by rain, hail or moisture or other atmospheric filtering.

A new rarely captured form of lightning that you did not picture is known as ionospheric lightning or upper-atmosphere lightning

It is rare and occurs from the top of the clouds during a thunderstorm. They are not well documented because of where they occur.

a reply to: Granite
Just to add
When they talk about purple lightning they actually mean these


and not the ones you posted. Those are just normal lightning bolts with the camera white balance set to magenta tint.

Look up sprite lightning


'abeverage' beat me to it

a reply to: rickymouse
Can learn a ton about the subject on this guys site. Good to read his listed source articles also.

a reply to: SeaWorthy

So the guy in the first video you listed, right at the end, said the grand minimum was in possibly two hundred fifty years and possibly much much sooner.

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: SeaWorthy

So the guy in the first video you listed, right at the end, said the grand minimum was in possibly two hundred fifty years and possibly much much sooner.

Did you watch the second? I am not arguing with you I am not an expert on the subject but it is certainly an interesting one and more info comes around every month.Clearly, things are quickly changing!
solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov...

Not yet watched the videos but I'm familiar with adapt2030.

I believe when it comes down to climate change it is the sun that's responsible and has the most effect on earth's climate and not humans and their co2 emissions which only takes up a minute amount of our atmosphere.
It's irresponsible and unscientific to ignore(to an extend) the sun when it comes down to climate.

Clouds affect the weather and climate more than we think. Their is a strong correlation between low cloud cover and cosmic rays where cosmic rays are 'controlled' by the solar wind aka the sun.
There are some interesting theories and papers written on the issue but are completely ignored by science.

It's the sun that controls us all folks, get over with it

originally posted by: manuelram16
Our Sun has been studied since Galileo made his telescope and it has cycles of high & low output but Climate change scientists somehow "ignore" this data from centuries....

No, climate science has not "ignored" this data. Please catch up.

a reply to: SeaWorthy

The second one is from suspicious observer, I actually like his stuff. It is from 2015. The thing is that if his observation would be true on this one, it is a prediction, it would mean there would be many more spotless days already this year. We have only had forty two so far this year and there has been a lot of coronal holes that are causing northern lights this year. So although he is getting better at things, he still is attempting to use what he learns to predict things and sometimes he gets it right and it is not just by chance that he gets it right either. I actually have watched a lot of his stuff he puts out over the years. At least he is trying to put things together which is better than some of the sciences are doing. Science does not like to say what they think, it jeopardizes future funding if they are wrong. With Suspicious Observer, he does not have to worry about funding. On top of that he has some people who he gets information from that are actually pretty much experts and they can get some of their predictions out without actually jeopardizing their funding and being called quacks.

Not everything suspicious says comes true. It is hard to tell if we are heading into a maunder minimum or not. That four hundred year cycle does not hold up as always being there. It is a cycle, but something influences that cycle, something that we have not yet discovered.We are crossing the plane of the center of the galaxy now, that will last a while. The sun sort of orbits the orbit and travels like a loose coil spring around a center point. Why? Who knows for sure, energy flows in a spiral wave a lot, looking like a spring. Will this effect us? Maybe. That cycle does not match the cycle of four hundred years though. So what causes this cycle and what effects it? Even suspicious does not really know. But at least he is trying, you will get nowhere if you do not try.

a reply to: rickymouse

Well put Sir!
Yes SO is a great guy and I believe we and yes even scientists can learn from him. You could say he's not a 'real scientist' but by observing, study and passion/devotion you can obtain quite a fair amount of knowledge by yourself, what more do you want, special degrees?

He is also not afraid to admit errors he made in the past, I've heard him doing that on numerous occasion. Something that many other scientists try to avoid like the plague until there is no other way.

I'm also following his earthquake prediction app and must say he is, until now, he is the only person that comes pretty close in predicting large earthquakes. His work on that deserves a lot more attention.

He is also close with his audience, another positive point imo.
When people hear he is a proponent of the Electric Universe theory, they will call him a pseudo scientist or quack and they don't even make an effort in hearing what the man has to say. Too bad.

a reply to: rickymouse

The second one is from suspicious observer,

The first is from his also. A series fro learning, good one.

a reply to: intergalactic fire

I'm open to the Electric Universe theory, The big bang theory sucks. We cannot determine how the universe formed from this tiny dot in the cosmos. The Electric Universe theory kind of tries to explain how things might work. It actually sounds somewhat feasible. What is our other accepted option. It's Not even worth discussing the accepted theory.

We can never know for sure how things work for the big picture. We can only guess and wonder if what we observe actually applies elsewhere. Scientists seem to try to say what science says is real is real. I say, it is impossible to figure out things from our position in space with the tools we have at our disposal.

a reply to: rickymouse

Yes we can. The core was the target for signal input containing the information. The big bang is the image of the information loading into the physical half of reality after "digital/quantum" modulation. Input, output. You only percieve. output: Lucifre

Like going to the movie theatre. You see what reflects off the monitor.

I was the weirdo watching the protectionist, and developing a relationship with him, while others eyes were glued to the monitor.

Everything works that way. Walter Russell came extremely close to figuring it out but in the end failed miserably, as he did not understand where the projection originates.

I do not only communicate with the protectionist, I communicate with the Monitor also.

He is electric, and takes credit for what we call the big bang.
The one that convinced Russell of the fallacy that the physical, material core was the Source of the eternally dynamic Sine signal powering reality.

The square wave generator whos inverted pulse modulated image opposes the Sine input, creating resistance, slow motion, TIME AND LOCALITY for an otherwise omnipotent omnipresent wave field of infinite speed.

originally posted by: BigBangWasAnEcho
a reply to: rickymouse

Yes we can. The core was the target for signal input containing the information. The big bang is the image of the information loading into the physical half of reality after "digital/quantum" modulation. Input, output. You only percieve. output: Lucifre

Like going to the movie theatre. You see what reflects off the monitor.

I was the weirdo watching the protectionist, and developing a relationship with him, while others eyes were glued to the monitor.

Everything works that way. Walter Russell came extremely close to figuring it out but in the end failed miserably, as he did not understand where the projection originates.

I do not only communicate with the protectionist, I communicate with the Monitor also.

He is electric, and takes credit for what we call the big bang.

The one that convinced Russell of the fallacy that the physical, material core was the Source of the eternally dynamic Sine signal powering reality.

The square wave generator whos inverted pulse modulated image opposes the Sine input, creating resistance, slow motion, TIME AND LOCALITY for an otherwise omnipotent omnipresent wave field of infinite speed.

You are using a lot of big words there and pictures and that will not convince me of anything, I have been taught to deflect that ad hominem technique by one of the best.

There is no way in hell we can accurately determine how our universe was formed from this point in space. I don't care how many degrees a guy has hanging on the wall. The Big bang theory is just a logical guess of what happened. The chance of it being right is right there with thousands of other theories out there, maybe one in ten thousand. We do not have nearly enough information to determine how the universe was formed. It is a deception. You can interpret the same evidence many different ways.