Climate researcher Michael Mann said last week that if President Donald Trump is reelected, it’s “game over for the climate.” It’s the same alarmism we’ve been hearing for decades, all of it empty. But the alarmists won’t stop telling us we’re about to set the sky on fire. Even if NASA has said record cold might be on the way.
The sun, it seems, has been powering down.
“We see a cooling trend,” Martin Mlynczak of NASA’s Langley Research Center said two years ago, a remark largely ignored but still relevant. “High above Earth’s surface, near the edge of space, our atmosphere is losing heat energy. If current trends continue, it could soon set a Space Age record for cold.”
Like the humans it keeps alive, our star goes through phases, usually about 11 years, over the course of its life. Right now we’re in what NASA calls solar cycle 25, emerging last December from a solar minimum that fell between solar cycles 24 and 25.
“It is important to remember solar activity never stops; it changes form as the pendulum swings,” says Lika Guhathakurta, solar scientist at NASA’s Heliophysics Division.
But climate alarmism continues to grow exponentially. It’s more shrill today than it’s ever been.
For the record, global temperatures dropped from 2016 through late 2019. We don’t know about any unprecedented cooling in the last two years. But maybe the climatistas need to consider that solar activity affects our climate. The Little Ice Age, in which Europe and North America experienced brutally cold winters and mild summers, coincided with the Maunder (solar) Minimum of 1645 to 1720. They don’t want to deny science, do they?
A couple of months ago science told us “the sun has entered into the modern Grand Solar Minimum (2020–2053) that will lead to a significant reduction of solar magnetic field and activity like during Maunder minimum leading to noticeable reduction of terrestrial temperature.”
“This global cooling during the upcoming grand solar minimum 1 (2020–2053),” says Valentina Zharkova, “can offset for three decades any signs of global warming and would require inter-government efforts to tackle problems with heat and food supplies for the whole population of the Earth.”
And who is Valentina Zharkova? A math professor at Northumbria University in Newcastle upon Tyne. She has degrees in mathematics and astronomy, and a doctorate in astrophysics. She’s clearly a published scientist employed by an English university whose tech roots go back to the 19th century. Shouldn’t we trust her science?
Or are we to trust only the science that says man’s CO2 emissions are overheating Earth? These are the researchers who are worshipped by the press and politicians eager to shut down our economy and rob our liberty to “fight” global warming with far more prohibitive limits than we’ve endured during the pandemic lockdown.
Before deciding if Zharkova is an outlier, or just maybe a crackpot, consider that she was one of only two scientists’ models out of 150 “to correctly predict solar cycle 24 would be weaker than cycle 23,” reports Electroverse, which also says “Zharkova’s models have run at a 97% accuracy.”
So whose science do we believe? The scientists with a political agenda who have for more than 30 years predicted that a global disaster due to human greenhouse gas emissions is imminent, yet have been wrong, wrong, and wrong again? Or the skeptics without whom real science can never progress?
Until events show the agenda-driven researchers are absolutely right, we’ll favor the latter.
— Written by the I&I Editorial Board