Between the years 1645 and 1715, there was a period of bitterly cold winters in the northern hemisphere. The winters were so cold that the Thames completely froze.This was caused by low solar activity, known as the Maunder Minimum, and when it will happen again has been a source of debate among scientists. Well, according to a new model that promises 97% accuracy, we’re due another “little ice age” in 15 to 25 years time. The prediction is the work of mathematics professor Valentina Zharkova from Northumbria University, examining the sun’s so-called “11-year heartbeat”. This is the period at which the sun’s activity remains steady before fluctuating every 10-12 years. Zharkova’s new model forecasts solar cycles based on two layers of moving fluid within the sun, one near the surface and another in the convection zone. By using this model, Zharkova’s team found their predictions “showed an accuracy of 97%”.
At this moment, I’m not concerned about whether the prediction is right or wrong; there’s plenty of time for me to buy ear muffs. I do think it is fascinating, however, and I offer these observations:
1. Question: Why has this story been virtually ignored by the mainstream news media? Answer: Because progressive journalists haven’t figured out how to reconcile their climate change, environmentalist, pro-EPA dictatorship, “all climate change skeptics are idiots and the equivalent of Holocaust deniers” narrative with its implications, that’s why. This is news, don’t you think? “Fit to print,” correct? Any time some semi-respectable scientist predicts that we have 20 years left to knee-cap American industry or the seas will boil, that’s headlines at MSNBC and the Times, isn’t it? I can’t think of a more blatant example of unprofessional and biased news manipulation for purely ideological reasons than the fact that this story has thus far been isolated to European and Australian news sources.
2. The theme of environmentalists and the progressive establishment, as well as elected officials who are just as certain about climate change despite not remotely understanding the science, is that the science is settled, that disastrous, man-caused global warming is certain, and that no argument to the contrary will be accepted or respected. Yet scientists just figured out, using a new model, that a massive global cooling will occur just 15 years from now. Quite simply, according to the angry, insulting rhetoric from the Gores, Pelosis, Obamas and their pundit cheerinbg section, this is impossible. Science has settled, and cannot be wrong, what the temperature will be a hundred years or more from now, and that’s that—no skepticism allowed. The models are undeniable! And yet, a new model, just developed, shows that a decidedly non-warming trend not predicted by those perfect models is now certain.
Reconcile those positions. Go ahead. I dare you. If the models have not accurately predicted what the climate will be like 15 years from now, it cannot be more reliable concerning hundreds of years in the future, since, presumably, a massive cooling for ten years will have an effect on the pace of subsequent warming. And might there be another cooling factor, or ten, to be discovered with a new model, or ten, between now and global warming Armageddon? No, you say? How can you be so sure?
3. What is the proper and responsible climate-fixing policy now, costing billions of dollars, that will address future global warming that is still subject to whatever OTHER new and excellent models the Northumbrians develop in the meantime—cloudy with a chance of meatballs, perhaps?—when before that the world must prepare for a “mini-Ice Age”? Explain that policy, please. For me, it brings to mind “Snowpiercer,” the recent sci-fi film about how a climate change fix goes horribly wrong and plunges the Earth into a permanent sub-zero, uninhabitable Hell.
4. Every climate change blathering politician must be asked, in public, to answer that question. Reporters have a duty to ask it, and politicians have a duty to answer. I can’t wait, especially for the Presidential debates. So far, climate change ventriloquist dummies—this is a fair description, since virtually none of the vocal climate change scolds, including that eminent scientist, the Pope, have any idea what their certitude is based on, except computer models they don’t understand—have said that climate change explains hurricanes and no hurricanes, warm winters and harsh winters, droughts and floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, and probably why Rachel Dolezal thinks she’s black. But this is a real challenge: I want to hear them explain how global warming explains a new ice age. I especially want to hear Joe Biden, who can’t say anything that makes sense about anything, and Hillary Clinton, who has to come back and explain everything she says the first time, and Al Gore, who thinks the world is so hot at its core that we should all be dead anyway, explain it. This should be good.
5. As I and anyone remotely objective have been arguing for years, the science of climate change is NOT settled, There are too many factors that affect world climate to create a long-range model that is accurate enough to bet billions of dollars, industries and livelihoods of speculative fixes that might not work or even be necessary. This sudden discovery of a looming mini-ice age proves how little scientists can be sure of, and how quickly and unexpectedly previously “proved” theories, projections and models can turn out to be wrong.
The discovery of the mini-ice age doesn’t prove that man-made climate change isn’t real. It does show that what this means for the world in a hundred or two hundred years, and what needs to be done about it, are uncertain…too uncertain, at this point, to commit resources and policies to addressing it. Anyone who claims otherwise is either lying, or doesn’t know what he is talking about.