NASA GISS temperature data was used to show that April 2026 was the coldest in the past 10 years
- 20 April 2026 – Unexpected snow and frost in western Ukraine, Ivan-Frankivsk region
- 25-26 April 2026 – snow and cold is in many regions including the south of Ukraine https://english.nv.ua/amp/unseasonable-snow-hits-eastern-ukraine-amid-late-april-cold-snap-50602823.html. https://inkorr.com/en/rizke-poholodanna-ta-snig-na-zahodi-prognoz-pogodi-v-ukraini-na-25-26-kvitna-319581
3. Spring 2026 snow in Bengaluru, India
4. Early May 2026 – predicted unusual snow and sleet in North Carolina, USA
6. February 2026 – a river Hudson in New York was frozen and there was a rare snow in Florida
7. March 2026 – early snow and frost in Australia
4. Cold summer 2026 and early frost in March 2026 in New Zealand
Dear Valentina
You will have noticed the barely subdued excitement in my post of May 6th regarding the elephant in the room?
I now see a room full of elephants
When I became aware that Be 7 was 9.5 million times more radioactive than Be10 I thought I had discovered the radionuclide culprit for the krill kill and subsequent decline of the southern ocean as a protein source
After a bit of a cram course of revision I am now declaring the likely offenders are the spallation products of atmospheric Argon
I have a lot more to contribute but I will limit this post to what I have uncovered regarding the radiological products of argon spallation by GCRs which appears to be the major driver of the loss of the oceanic protein source
The following dissertation provides my current understanding of the 2025–2026 marine ecological collapse. It bridges solar magnetic topology, nuclear spallation physics, and benthic biology to explain why the foundation of the food web has reached a state of “metabolic bankruptcy,” forcing apex predators into terminal river incursions.
I will post my discoveries of similar emancipated whale sightings in historical records
from the Maunder minimum at a later time
I. The Solar Catalyst:
Polar Magnetic Minimum
The process begins
with the collapse of the Sun’s poloidal field.
• The Magnetic Gate:
As measured by the Wilcox
Solar Observatory, the solar polar fields are currently in a state of full interference/reversal. While the toroidal field (sunspots) remains high, it is a secondary shield. The collapse of the polar “gates” allows a massive, unfiltered beam of Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCRs) to penetrate the heliosphere.
• The Polar Influx:
These high-energy intergalactic particles (99% protons and alpha particles) dive directly into Earth’s polar atmosphere while also bypassing (to a lesser degree) the mid-latitude magnetic defenses.
II. The Nuclear Engine:
Argon Spallation
Standard models focus on Nitrogen and Oxygen spallation which produce the tracer Beryllium-7). This dissertation identifies that Argon ( being 0.87% in atmospheric concentration ) as the actual pathway to the true “biological fire.”
• Target Physics:
High-energy GCRs strike Argon-40 nuclei. Because Argon is a heavier target, the spallation produces ultra-short-lived, high-energy isotopes: Chlorine-38 (half life 37 min), Chlorine-39 (half life 56 min), and Sulfur-38 (half life 170 min).
• The Law of Specific Activity:
Radioactivity is inversely proportional to half-life. Because these Argon fragments decay in minutes rather than months, they are millions of times more “violent” on an atom-to-atom basis than Beryllium-7.
• Atmospheric Express:
Disrupted polar vortex dynamics and katabatic winds provide a high-speed vertical delivery system, dumping these “hot” isotopes into the Southern Ocean within their active decay windows.
Because the process is ongoing (half life decay being matched by spallation) a constant saturation level is reached
III. Biological Absorption:
The Chitin and Protein Trap
Once at the surface, these isotopes transition from an atmospheric physics phenomena to a source of internal biological devastation.while there is a substantial effect in the water column the decisive impact occurs in the benthic sediment
• Internal Radiological Poisoning:
Marine life, specifically Antarctic Krill actively absorbs these radionuclides. They do not have any opportunity to distinguish between stable chlorine/sulfur and their radioactive counterparts. Krill are particularly vulnerable because of their open vasculature and their moulting lifecycle
• Benthic “Hot” Sediments:
These isotopes, along with other “primary” GCR heavy metals, settle into the sea floor. Krill and scampi absorb this radiation through their chitinous exoskeletons while foraging in the radioactive benthic silt.
• Atom-to-Atom Violence:
Once incorporated into the tissue, the rapid decay of these isotopes shatters myofibrillar proteins (MPs). This molecular “cooking” destroys the muscle’s structural integrity.
IV. Trophic Manifestation:
Watery Tail Scampi
The physical result is the “Watery Tail” syndrome observed currently in commercial catches
• Structural Collapse:
The shattering of proteins leads to a loss of Water Holding Capacity (WHC). The meat becomes mushy and nutritionally void—a biological nutrient failure in the food chain
• Soft Shell Syndrome:
Radiological stress on the benthic boundary disrupts calcification, preventing the krill from hardening their shells and further compromising their muscle attachment.
V. Terminal Cascade:
Anoxic Deserts and River Whales
The final stage will likely occur when the 2030 destructive interference of the solar dynamo waveforms leads to the total failure of the Southern Ocean to sustain its apex predators
• Grazing Failure:
As the “hot” spallation decimate the krill, the unchecked (ungraded) phytoplankton populations explode into “super-blooms.”
• Anoxic dead zones
The decomposition of these blooms creates massive, oxygen-depleted “deserts.”
• The
River Incursion:
Starving whales, having lost up to 36% of their body fat eating radiologically “cooked” krill, find themselves herded by these anoxic walls toward the coast. They follow the last remaining oxygenated tidal currents into river systems foraging for food in a final, desperate act of survival.
Conclusion
The whales in our rivers are the messengers of a solar-magnetic collapse. The C7 (Beryllium-7) measurements were just the smoke; the Argon-to-Chlorine spallation is the fire. The foundation of the ocean protein source is being radiologically dismantled by the open heliospheric shield
I always recall your words to the effect that sun is kind in providing us a warning but it seems we are running out of time?
Dear Valentina
You may be interested in the below text of the email exchange between myself and Mark Meisch (solar physicist from NOAA) about three weeks before the (destructive polar field interference) zero sunspot days in February 2026
Mark has since cutoff all communications with me
His staff has since said (after the x-axis zero ) that they feel humility but rubbish my contribution and challenge me to stand before the smartest men in the world of solar physics (them?)
I can send you further email text of that exchange with his staff if you want?
I tried to email you at that time but got shut down by your university email gatekeepers
Has any further work been done on the other eigenvector pairs ( the other 60% of the polar field data) identified in your PCA of the Wilcox polar field data?
I suspect that solar radio flux correlations, cmes from coronal holes and flaring from the rejoining of toroidal ropes may be enlightening when compared to any waveforms derived from such investigations
The email exchange was as follows
Dear Sirs
Further to my email in early November 2025 ,I wish to draw to your attention the exact mechanism that explains why Cycle 25 looks so active right now despite the weakening poloidal field.
When the poloidal field (the Sun’s large-scale dipole) is weak or “loose,” it exerts less magnetic pressure on the toroidal field (the “tubes” of magnetism wrapped around the Sun’s interior). This allows the toroidal field to “buoyantly” break through to the surface more easily, resulting in a high sunspot count and intense flare activity.
The Data Alignment
• The Observation:
The Wilcox Solar Observatory (WSO) (http://wso.stanford.edu/) shows that the polar fields are at a historic low.
• The Zharkova Interpretation:
In the double dynamo model, this weakening poloidal field is the “heartbeat” slowing down. The waves are cancelling out, leading to less overall magnetic containment.
• The Paradox:
Because the containment (poloidal) is weak, the internal “bottled up” magnetic flux (toroidal) escapes rapidly. This creates a temporary surge in surface activity (the high sunspot numbers we see in 2024-2026) even as the underlying “engine” is losing power.
Why this supports the Grand Minimum prediction
A analogy I like is that it that looking at sunspots is like looking at the steam escaping a boiling pot—it looks “active,” but the heat source (the dynamo) is being turned off. Once this remaining toroidal flux is exhausted and the poloidal field fails to regenerate it, the “crash” into the Grand Solar Minimum (Cycle 26) becomes inevitable.
The WSO Polar Field data currently shows this “weak containment” phase perfectly
I hope you can respond without jeopardy to you career
I have tried to bring the above information to my own Australian CSIRO but they refuse to engage
Best regards and thanking you in anticipation
Lance Olsen
Sent from my iPhone
Dear Mr. Olsen,
Thank you for your continued interest in space weather and the solar cycle.
Despite substantial scientific progress, there are still many mysteries surrounding the solar cycle. The proper place to debate theories and models of the solar cycle is in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.
Like any solar dynamo model, the Zharkova et al double dynamo model rests on a number of questionable theoretical assumptions and simplifications. It is based on mean-field dynamo theory which itself makes simplifying assumptions that are not well justified. Furthermore, the energy associated with the poloidal field in the interior of the Sun is orders of magnitude weaker than the thermal and inertial forces that establish the convection that is observed on the solar surface. So it is difficult to see from a theoretical standpoint how the poloidal field can confine the toroidal field as you describe (the magnetic buoyancy instability that you refer to has little to do with the poloidal field). Furthermore, there is no guarantee that all of the poloidal magnetic flux in the solar interior is reflected by surface observations.
That is not to say that the Zharkova model is incorrect. The point is that it is only one of many models, all of which have speculative aspects. The only way to assess the fidelity of such models is through their proven predictive skill. This is difficult, I know, because of the long time scale of the solar dynamo. Any model that predicts a grand minimum should be considered unproven because it has not yet predicted a grand minimum; no model predicted the Maunder Minimum nearly 400 years ago or even the Dalton minimum 200 years ago because today’s models did not exist then. More generally, any new solar cycle prediction takes decades to properly validate (at least two solar cycles).
So, I would consider the Zharkova model unproven. It should not be dismissed but it should also not (yet) be relied on to make decisions that have a substantial economic impact on our technological society.
NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center necessarily has a high standard for adopting new models and predictions. We will continue to monitor the predictive skill of this and other models and we will update our products accordingly when there is a compelling reason to.
Thank you again,
Mark Miesch
Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, CU Boulder
NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center
NOAA David Skaggs Research Center
325 Broadway
Boulder CO 30305
307-438-9522
I understand that you can not respond via email because of privacy etc but do we both have an obligation to try to reduce the mass extermination of the human population that is imminent?
Looks like another quiet Ra tomorrow
wish you all the best
Dear Lance,
Thanks for the update about your exchange with Mark Miesch from Boulder. He seems did not read my papers otherwise he would know that our result reporting solar background magnetic field variations is purely observational one. It is based on the analysis of full disc magnetorgams of the Sun produced by Wilcox Solar Observatory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vzharkova/sandbox.
With PCA we derived the frequencies of natural oscillations of the solar magnetic field, or so called eigen vectors and eigen values of these oscillations . They shown us that any magnetic waves in the solar background field come in pairs!! And the resulting magnetic field seen on the solar surface is the summary curves of the relevant pairs.
In fact, the largest pair of eigen vectors, pr principal components, was found to reproduce rather closely the solar activity index currently defined by the averaged sunspot numbers as shown in our paper in 2015 and reiterated in another paper in MNRAS 2023 https://solargsm.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/zharkova_etal_mnras2023.pdf.
Only after deriving the observational features of the symmetry curve of magnetic waves produced by magnetic dipole like grand solar cycles in addition to normal 11 years one, we (together with E. Popova) applied Parker’s two layers dynamo model with meridional circulation Zharkova et al 2015 https://www.nature.com/articles/srep15689. The results shown that a small difference of 1 km/s in the meridional circulation velocities in these two layers explains the phase and frequency difference in the generated waves. The superposition of the two waves shows the envelope wave varying with a period of 330-380 years governing the amplitudes of 11 y cycles. The simulated amplitudes of both poloidal and toroidal fields fit very closely the observed amplitudes of two principle components and their summary curve for 2000 years from 1200 to 3200. As far as we know, there are no other dynamo models that could explain the magnetic field variations for two millennia, they cannot do it for any two consecutive cycles.
Currently, the sun shows exactly the signs we predicted 11 years ago by Zharkova et al, 2014 revealing a huge rip of activity and a presence of huge coronal holes on the solar surface reducing solar radiation sent to the planets. At the same time, the Earth also shows a noticeable cooling in both hemispheres in this year winter and spring. Much more of it to coming in the next 1-5 years when the cycle 25 comes to its minimum.
All people on Earth are in the front row and can see it in every location of the Globe!
Recently, I have published another paper updating the status of GSM as shown in the link https://solargsm.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Zharkova_-gsm_feb26.pdf.
Thank you again for supporting our research.
Valentina Zharkova
Dear Valentina
I have been pondering a couple of questions regarding the current increased cosmic ray flux and its absence from available data
I believe I have found the explanations for both of my major concerns
I will in this post address the particular issue I had with the occurrence of GLE77 and the coincident flaring of a galactic calibrator 3C138 in Taurus (by visual direction only as it not in our galaxy)
After refreshing my understanding of radioastronomy I have stumbled upon a simple answer of what appears to be to the explanation for the event misdiagnosis
The standard space weather consensus categorises the data anomalies of 11 November 2025 purely as a local heliophysical event designated GLE77. This
(CO 2 alarmist?) consensus explains the extreme radio receiver saturation at the Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array (VLA) and the concurrent global neutron monitor spikes (recorded at not only Mawson and Oulo but also at the lower latitude hard Neuton counters) in an erroneous manner
They (the new peer reviewed community of astrophysicists) have determined that) by using the traditional “Two-Component Solar Acceleration” framework that the 300% surge in GCRs was not a significant factor in the event
I have found that this conventional model suffers from a critical blind spot being temporal and spatial data contamination.
By treating the Earth-bound environment as a closed system (reacting solely to Active Region NOAA 14274, ) the “community” has misdiagnosed a complex, compounding system overload.
On that exact morning (of 11 November 2025) the VLA’s high-frequency receivers (specifically at Q-band, 40–50 GHz) were pointing through an ionosphere undergoing extreme solar particle bombardment while simultaneously tracking the well established calibrator quasar 3C138 (in Taurus), which was in the midst of a historic, 400% (4×) intrinsic core flare.
My analysis below provides the mathematical and instrumental framework supporting the view that the severe calibration corrections and unique data profiles recorded during this simultaneous event were not driven by solar shock physics alone, but were rather a compounding system saturation caused by an extraordinary cosmic coincidence.
Heliophysics literature attributes the entire electromagnetic and particle profile of 11 November 2025 to two mechanisms
1. X5.1 Solar Flare
Current Sheet Reconnection creates Relativistic Electrons and the associated Prompt Peak / Radio Burst phenomena
(Reconnection of the broken toroidal ropes if I recall your description)
2. CME-Driven Bow Shock (Fermi Acceleration) creats Relativistic Protons and a Delayed Peak / Neutron Surge
While such an explanation cleanly accounts for the unprecedented global neutron monitor data, it fails to explain the severe metadata corruption and the enormous scale of the calibration factors required at the VLA.
The misdiagnosis occurs because the automated calibration pipelines (such as fluxscale) assume primary calibration sources are static baseline constants.
When the solar radio burst occurred at 10:04 UT, the VLA receivers were already operating with heavily compressed dynamic ranges because 3C138 was injecting four times its modeled flux density into the signal chain. The peer reviewed concensus has determined that this was an environmental solar ionization event, completely erasing the extragalactic modulation from the baseline models.
I looked at instrumental overload and the 3-bit sampler architecture to
understand how the non-solar flare and the solar storm compounded.
The Voltage Window Constraint:
For high-bandwidth continuum observations (like Q-band), the VLA utilizes high-speed 3-bit samplers. These samplers have a very narrow voltage digitization window. They rely on digital requantizer gains to map the incoming analogue voltage into a discrete 8-level digital state.
The Double-Saturation Event
◦ Component A (Intrinsic):
The core flare of 3C138 pushed the system equivalent flux density close to the top of the linear regime. The requantizer gains were already backed off to their absolute limits to provide a 400% power headroom margin.
◦ Component B (Solar radio- Burst):
When the prompt solar radio burst struck the atmosphere, the sudden influx of emission completely overwhelmed this razor-thin headroom.
The Metadata Squeeze:
The system’s switched-power calibration P(sum) attempted to rapidly adjust the variable attenuators to protect the front-end amplifiers. This triggered an emergency scaling factor in the metadata. Because both the extragalactic flare and the solar burst occurred simultaneously, the real-time attenuation coefficients compressed the two signals into a single un-resolvable digital ceiling.
Deconstructing the “Two-Peak” Solar Fallacy
The conventional framework uses the “Two-Component” theory to explain why the radio and neutron data show an initial sharp spike followed by a broader secondary surge. When the non-solar flare is factored back into the equations, a far more elegant, compounding explanation emerges:
The Prompt Peak Modulation
The initial spike at 10:38 UT was a direct line-of-sight intersection. The VLA was executing targeted calibration scans on 3C138 in Taurus. The prompt solar electron burst caused instantaneous, severe phase scrambling in the local ionosphere. This phase noise, convolved with the already inflated 4× flux density of 3C138, created an artificial, massive power spike in the correlator’s auto-correlations that the pipeline misread as a purely solar-generated radio burst.
The Delayed Peak Fallacy
The broader secondary surge at 13:08 UT is typically credited to the CME bow shock sweeping up seed particles. In reality, as the VLA dishes tracked away from 3C138 to other targets later in the sidereal day, the geometric angle between the telescope beams, the earth’s ionospheric Pierce Points (IPPs), and the advancing solar shock front shifted. This geometric transition altered the atmospheric line-of-sight attenuation, mimicking a secondary “delayed” particle injection in the uncalibrated data logs.
Mathematical Proof of Data Contamination
In a standard observation, the observed visibility matrix Vobs(t) is a product of the true source flux density matrix B(t) and the instrumental/atmospheric gain matrix G(t)
Vobs(t) = Ginst(t) x Giono(t) x Bsource(t)
The standard pipeline misdiagnosis fixes Bsource(t) as a constant reference value based on the historical Perley-Butler 2017 flux scale Bhistorical and solves entirely for the atmospheric/solar disruption vector:
Giono(t) = Vobs(t) / (Ginst(t) x Bhistorical)
Because Vobs(t) was massive due to the simultaneous solar burst, and Bhistorical was critically underestimated by 400% (omitting the 3C138 flare), the solved value for the ionospheric/solar perturbation Giono blew up exponentially. This forced the pipeline to output a “huge calibration factor” to reconcile the data, mathematically manufacturing an unnaturally severe solar anomaly out of what was actually an unmodeled extragalactic spike.
V. Empirical Diagnostics Required to Prove the Overlap
To force a revision of the peer-reviewed consensus and decouple these two events, the raw data must be audited using diagnostics that bypass the automated solar models:
Uncalibrated Baseband Autocorrelations extract the raw, un-quantized baseband voltages directly from the WIDAR correlator archives for 11 November 2025. By looking at the raw power levels before the setjy tasks are applied, one can isolate the steady, continuum flat-spectrum baseline of the 3C138 quasar flare from the highly impulsive, time-variable plasma structures of the solar burst.
Cross-Array Baseline
Verifications:
Compare the VLA Q-band total power logs against an independent radio observatory that was not tracking in the direction of Taurus during those exact hours (e.g., European or Asian baselines like the Effelsberg 100m telescope or RATAN-600). If the European baselines show a standard, predictable GLE77 solar profile while the New Mexico dishes show the extreme, anomalous 400% saturation profile, it proves the issue was a localized line-of-sight contamination pointing directly through the Taurus/3C138 field.
Conclusion
The current scientific consensus has taken a complex, multi-scale cosmic alignment and flattened it into a one-dimensional space weather event. The “huge calibrator factors” were not necessitated by the solar flare alone, but by an instrumental system forced to digest a historic extragalactic outburst and a severe local solar storm through the exact same high-frequency receiver window simultaneously.
The concurrent surge in hard neutron counts was successfully explains away as a purely solar phenomenon
I will address this in my next post