Brace yourself: Winter is coming. According to climate scientists, who apparently have just recently started looking at the sun, a quiet sun is going to cause a severe dip in global temperatures—possibly resulting in another “Little Ice Age”:
Climate experts warn the amount of light and warmth released by the sun is nosediving to levels “not seen for centuries.”
They fear a repeat of the so-called ‘Maunder Minimum’ which triggered Arctic winter whiteouts and led to the River Thames freezing 300 years ago.
The Met Office-led study warns although the effect will be offset by recent global warming, Britain faces years of unusually cold winters.
A spokesman said: “A return to low solar activity not seen for centuries could increase the chances of cold winters in Europe and eastern parts of the United States but wouldn’t halt global warming.”
Did you catch that? In spite of very clear evidence to the contrary, not one of the climate scientists is willing to admit that “global warming” may have been caused by an unusually active sun. Global temperatures go through cycles as our nearly sole (no pun intended) source of heat goes through cycles of solar minimum and maximum. That seems to me to be the easiest explanation for cooling and warming cycles in earth’s history.
Here’s how it works. The sun has an electromagnetic field which contains the power of the sun’s constant fusion reaction. In the balancing act between the restraining force of the field and the explosive force of fusion, sometimes the fusion wins a little bit and sometimes the field wins a little bit. When fusion wins, a little bit of the fusion power breaks through in a solar flare. When the field wins, it creates a sunspot—a “dark” spot where the sun’s activity is slightly diminished. Strangely, the area around a sunspot is even more active than normal, and this increased activity usually results in greater overall energy output. In other words: Lots of sunspots equals a hotter sun; fewer sunspots equals a cooler sun.
The sun’s electro-magnetic field goes through cycles. Its polarity reverses, usually over the course of about 11 years. In that time, sunspots appear at the equator of the sun, and diminish as they travel to the poles. In addition to the 11-year cycle for polarity reversal, there are also larger cycles in the sun’s activity with attending variations in sunspot formation. A period (usually lasting longer than the 11-year solar cycle) with unusually low sunspot activity (cool sun) is called a grand solar minimum. A period with unusually high sunspot activity (hot sun) is called a grand solar maximum.
Now, let’s look at the sunspot data. It’s very interesting.
There was the Medieval Maximum, a time of great heat and extended growing seasons, but also a time when vermin became nearly uncontrollable due to the combination of mild winters, no refrigeration, and bad hygiene. Bubonic Plague, anyone? Then we had a declining cycle of minimums bottoming out in the Maunder Minimum of the mid 17th century. Global temperatures dropped to the lowest ever. The Thames froze over. People ice-skated on Dutch dykes. You know. It was cold and bleak. But at least most of the rats died.
Then starting in 1900, you had a steady rise of sunspot activity, culminating in the Modern Maximum—a period of sunspot activity far exceeding the previous high water mark of Medieval times. The “global warming” trend (and “hockey stick”) actually tracks perfectly with solar sunspot activity. Then, about ten years ago or so, sunspot activity started dipping into another grand solar minimum. It was around this time that climate “scientists” started dropping the “global warming” label and started talking about “climate change” instead.
They talk about a global warming “hiatus” and act like climate cycles are not a clear established fact of history and science. They’re still not giving up, are they? You’ve got to hand it to them. At least they’re persistent. Now that it looks like we’re heading into an even lower minimum, it will be interesting to see how humans and industry are still responsible for that too.
There is no need for the anthropogenic explanation for climate cycles. If you overlay climate data with solar cycles, the correlation is absolutely remarkable. Why climate “scientists” have insisted on a human cause for climate change can be chalked up to the pitfalls of groupthink, the politicization of science, and the baffling and intransigent ignorance of the populace.
Does that mean that humans should just keep burning fossil fuel at massive rates? No. There are other reasons to develop so-called “clean energy.” Air and (especially) water quality are still important for healthy, happy living. It’s just probably not the end of the world, at least not from bad weather. Will that stop governments from using the apocalyptic narrative to get you to toe the line? Nope. Not until hell freezes over.