Right, that does it!
I'm going to shoot every hybrid and electric car owner to save the planet! And also to get the slowpokes out of the passing lane.
German researchers say they have found solid evidence that a past "solar minimum" period of prolonged low solar activity – of the sort which some hefty physicists believe will commence within a few years – significantly cooled the climate. The research flies counter to theories offered by climate scientists, who contend that a …
..............North Norway (in a town whose local nickname is "Snow hole" which will give you the general picture) I was looking forward to global warming and here's Lewis is doing his level best to destroy my dreams of growing grapes up here. I wish people would make their minds - I don't know whether to migrate south or stay where I am!
I wouldn't burn your coal yet. If we do get another global cooling period, wolrd energy consumption is going to be horrifying.
All the more reason we should be building nuclear power stations as fast as we can and stockpiling fuel. Britain cannot *afford* the fuel costs we'd have if we saw another period like in the 17th/18th centuries if we're subsisting off oil and gas.
IIRC, only about 10% of global energy is used for heating/cooling. The biggest users are industry and transport and they will increase in line with economic growth regardless of the global temperature. The second biggest "user" is lost energy due to inefficient production and distribution.
Nuclear power is almost certainly necessary, but it's not as simple as saying that we'll need more nuclear power if global temperature goes down. In some of the fastest growing areas (parts of China and Brazil for example) far more energy is spent on cooling than on heating.
You realise that GFZ sucks up a fair slurp of the european climate gravy train? And that this study relies on proxies for past climate? And that it uses standard long-term computational models?
By any one of those three measures it is "not real science" according to official climate sceptic rules.
Or are those rules set to one side when there's an opportunity to misinterpret the results as somehow supporting your scepticism?
Same applies to non sceptics. You can't claim proxies are accurate, and then say that a correlation between solar activity and those proxies should not be taken seriously. It may not be causation, but it might be.
Svensmark and others are beginning to show that there are a number of possible ways in which the Sun can significantly influence climate without the total solar irradiance needing to vary too much. Nothing is certain, but the science *is* interesting.
I have to say that it's strange that all this climate science is being done, and that the majority of those doing it have simply ruled out significant solar effects. It seems so.... unscientific.
"By any one of those three measures it is "not real science" according to official climate sceptic rules."
Then I suggest you familiarize yourself with 'official climate sceptic rules' a little better, instead of clinging to the same strawman AGW-supporters endlessly drag out and dance around in these discussions. Most AGW-sceptics are sceptical about the A part of AGW. I.e. how significant a part of climate change human activity is. For pity's sake, the most reliable study showing an increase in average global temperature was funded by the Koch brothers - those oil tycoons that many AGW-supporters love to pillory (and who are often accused of being enemies of the AGW Truth). That study showed an average rise of about 1.7C since around the start of the 20th Century. Few AGW sceptics say that hasn't happened. What we say is we are unconvinced that it is primarily a result of human activity.
And if it is not primarily due to that, then all the predictions of what will happen next based on that theory, are written on the wind.
The wilful determination, after all these years, of pro-AGW people to repeatedly in every discussion on AGW, continue to to insist that sceptics think the climate can never change, despite endless corrections by *actual* sceptics is beyond moronic. Global temperatures have risen very slightly over the past century according to the latest study. That study was actually funded by people regularly accused of being anti-AGW. We sceptics generally think this rise is small (it's probably even a good thing, generally), that it is unlikely to enter some catastrophic feedback look and that the cause is not primarily human activity. Understand? Good. Now next time try and resist the compulsive urge of all pro-AGW people to point at sceptics and say: "they think the climate never changes, ha ha ha." Okay?
Most AGW-sceptics are sceptical about the A part of AGW. I.e. how significant a part of climate change human activity is.
And most relevant scientists agree that the A part is significant so most AGW sceptics are most probably wrong.
"And most relevant scientists agree that the A part is significant so most AGW sceptics are most probably wrong"
Yes... but the models that these scientists use as the basis for considering the A in AGW to be significant all minimise the effect of solar output, while this new study may show a mechanism by which even a small change in solar output could have larger climate effects. So the existing models should be updated with the new data.
Personally I think that most of the warming in the last century is human caused, but I can't look past the fact that pretty much 100% of the heat energy on Earth comes from the sun, so it's naive to believe that 100% of the change is coming from human factors and 0% from the sun, just as it is naive to believe the opposite. Updating the models will allow us to get a better handle on what the balance is. (and by the way, the article mentions dramatic temperature changes over short time periods, does not mention specifics. Is it half a degree, 1 degree, 5 degrees? Over how many years? I bet they would be in the research paper so why not put them in the article?)
One last VERY IMPORTANT thing - CONTROL. We have no control over solar output, at best we can (very roughly) predict possible future patterns based on past cycles. We CAN control CO2 emissions. And whether the planet is accelerating it's warming or turning to cooling, planet-wide energy usage will still accelerate, and the amount of fossil fuels is still finite. SO LETS START BUILDING MORE NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS, NOW!
"Yes... but the models that these scientists use as the basis for considering the A in AGW to be significant all minimise the effect of solar output"
No they don't. It's just a fact that the Sun's output doesn't vary much.
Hence why in this article the scientists are having to appeal to positive feedbacks to get the Sun to provide any punch.
"while this new study may show a mechanism by which even a small change in solar output could have larger climate effects. So the existing models should be updated with the new data."
*may show a mechanism* is not the same thing as actually having a mechanism based on physics that can be plugged into models.
"*may show a mechanism* is not the same thing as actually having a mechanism based on physics that can be plugged into models."
Perfectly right, that's the beauty of models. I'm not expecting that the existing models all just be revised with the newly proposed feedback mechanisms for solar forcing, especially if this feedback mechanism isn't even properly understood.... but I WOULD expect someone to update a model with a few possible different variants of the newly described mechanism, run them all in parallel with the current model and see which of the the updated models is most accurate, and whether any of the updated models are more accurate than the current model.
You know, it's the funniest damn thing that warmists throw that out there like it's gospel fact, and then when you do a simple Google search on 'variation in solar output 1900 to current' you can quickly find the following website:
where low and behold, the "not much variation in solar output" looks an awful lot like the "alarming temperature rise" since 1970, plus includes the global ice age scare they were running back then.
The source you cite only goes up to 1980.
Lassen '91 contained an error.
Look up Lassen '99, which corrected the error and extended the data and reported a break down in the correlation.
But deniers are still referencing 1991. Why? It's all they've got. "not much variation in solar output" is simply true. To get around that denier sources have to BS.
"And most relevant scientists agree that the A part is significant so most AGW sceptics are most probably wrong."
And in classic style, you shift ground. You've gone from blindly strawmanning that AGW-sceptics think the climate never changes to saying it doesn't matter because we're wrong about the causes anyway. Just drop the strawman part please, and at least that will be progress toward rational discussion rather than misrepresenting the views of those you disagree with which is never constructive.
"Would you care to point to the post where I did any such thing?"
Certainly.This whole paragraph you wrote:
"You realise that GFZ sucks up a fair slurp of the european climate gravy train? And that this study relies on proxies for past climate? And that it uses standard long-term computational models?
By any one of those three measures it is "not real science" according to official climate sceptic rules."
Basically it makes an attack on the presumption that AGW-skeptics discount evidence showing that the climate has changed. Despite some of the most significant and reliable evidence that the climate has changed recently being funded by such hate-figures as the Koch Brothers. The entire paragraph falls apart as an attack when (or in your case if) you realize that AGW-skeptics don't claim (except a lunatic fringe which all groups have) that the climate isn't changing, but that we are skeptical about the causes of it. Your entire thing above sets up this strawman that AGW-skeptics are saying the climate never changes and are being proven wrong by this evidence that it does. When in fact, we don't argue that the climate never changes, we say we're not really convinced as to the cause which the above is irrelevant to.
I explained very clearly how what you wrote assumes that AGW-sceptics argue the climate does not change. I get very tired of being attacked by people pointing at evidence of the climate changing and saying 'ah ha - you are refuted' (in essence that is what your point was). One more time: AGW-sceptics are primarily sceptical about the causes of climate changes. Saying that the climate changes proves nothing to anyone.
"Then I suggest you familiarize yourself with 'official climate sceptic rules' a little better, instead of clinging to the same strawman AGW-supporters endlessly drag out and dance around in these discussions."
Your strawman is itself a strawman. You don't actually address any of the 3 points Some Beggar
made. As Some Beggar pointed out, if this study wasn't convenient for skeptics they would
1) accuse the scientists of just being part of a gravy train.
2) claim that the use of proxies for past climate was suspect.
3) claim that the use of models means it isn't science
Never mind science. As the Climategate emails show, climate science is more pantomime than drama. But there's a foolproof test for whether AGW is "real" or "made up". Let's start with a test: Do governments lie to us?
I think we can say a firm yes on the following few categories:
1) Their expenses claims
2) Reasons for going to war, WMD et al
3) Inflation figures
4) Unemployment figures
5) Growth forecasts
6) Referendums they've promised us
7) Public spending cuts
8) Relationships with Murdoch (or any other powerful type)
9) Their commitment to civil liberties
10) Comitments to control immigration
11) Stability of the financial sector
12) The end of boom and bust
13) Quality, cost, suitability of defence equipment
14) Their willingness and ability to kick undesirable aliens out of the country
15) that HS2 won't be a huge money pit that will never pay back
16) cash for honours, cash for questions, cash for access
etc etc, because I think you'll have got the gist of this.
Now, our governments of all hue for the past fifteen years have been committed believers and worshippers at the altar to AGW, and have crafted an inept energy policy in response, along with commitments on carbon emissions that will force the last remaining industry out of this country.
So what are the chances that the inveterate liars and thieves who repeatedly get elected have been proven to be dishonest, wrong and incompetent in respect of almost everything their inept and grasping fingers touch, but suddenly, on one particular topic, they are correct, well intentioned and trustworthy?
Almost by definition, if governent believes something, you can be sure that reality is in the opposite direction.
Not in the least. I am as doubtful of the predictions about the coming solar minimum as I am of the coming meltdown, and for somewhat similar reasons - The use of proxies and that I'm not certain they have a sufficiently long data collection period vis-a-vie long cycle variations in solar sun spots.
That being said, they are at least on solid ground for having established the frequency of the short term solar cycle at 22 years (with min/max occurring twice per cycle for a complete migration of the solar magnetic poles). They've also got a somewhat longer baseline for observations. I don't recall having seen anything about Copernicus's weather observations, but his astronomy observations are pretty well documented. So I'd give them a slight edge on whether or not their longer term cycles are right.
I'm also a bit more comfortable in that they aren't predicting 'DOOM! DOOM! DOOM!' if we don't change our ways to comport with their political leanings.
It was funny if nothing else, like a tech oriented Richard Littlejohn, YOU CAN NOT MAKE IT UP.
But you can obfuscate anything into an anti climate change stance, that deserves some plaudits, it isn't like he wins them with journalistic integrity.
It's called advertising and El Reg might have some say about what might appear, but generally the shots are called by the advertising agency. Probably Google. In which case you are see StatOil because Google knows your interests. So look to yourself before you look to El Reg.
Have a look at pharyngula or any atheist site - they are covered in adverts for prayer lines and miracle cures. All those references to god but no context checking engine in the advert spewing machine... Or maybe you have a point and all the atheist sites are a fake by god to test our faith!
Your joking. (Looks up) Your not!
That's it, all cred to Reg is gone. Sorry, it's not their fault, but I've seen countless magazines and sites cave in to the pressure of advertisers. It seems a one way street when they take over. One sided reviews, one sided opinions and articles no better than my dreams. :P
Some years snow remains all year round near the top of Australia's highest mainland mountain (Mount Kosciuszko). A drop in average temperatures could see that snow remaining all year round *every* year, which would cause it to gradually build up and form a small glacier. Interestingly, this patch of snow lies on the side of a glacial cirque... so we know that a glacier *can* form here.
"In particular the idea that the planet can expect a lengthy cool period until 2100 or beyond would tend to undermine the War On Carbon, and any suggestion that solar variability is as big a factor in climate as carbon emissions leads to intense hostility from many career climate scientists and large sections of the media (as we know well here at the Reg)."
Me thinks Mr. Page should actually read his referenced article ("Guardian super-blogger flames Reg boffinry desk"). Or to put it another way, I read the referenced article and I can't decide if Lewis is or isn't aware that he is deliberately misrepresenting what Robbins appeared to be saying? Is this tunnel vision, a poor grasp of the English language, or intentional flamery? I mean if the scientist who wrote the paper you are referencing as proof of your position says that your position misrepresents the research, how does one reasonably go back and blame the guy calling you out for it? So if that is the best example you can pull out to validate your assertation that all the evil climatologists are chagrined by the assumption that the sun impacts the climate... well I guess I'll just go with "nice try."
"GO" because I really wish you'd go back and try again. I'd have added BEER too because you make me want to go drink, but I can only pick one.
"the idea that the planet can expect a lengthy cool period until 2100 or beyond would tend to undermine the War On Carbon"
With that attitude, we should be able to carry on pumping CO2 into the atmosphere without a thought for what effect that will have when the sun picks up again.
"With that attitude, we should be able to carry on pumping CO2 into the atmosphere without a thought for what effect that will have when the sun picks up again."
There are some very good reasons to move off fossil fuels that have nothing to do with AGW theories. Primarily, fossil fuels are finite and running out. We need more nuclear power and fast.
"However the idea that variations in the Sun have any serious effect on the climate is a controversial one."
So controversial it prompted people like skepticalscience to say
'As supplier of almost all the energy in Earth's climate, the sun has a strong influence on climate. A comparison of sun and climate over the past 1150 years found temperatures closely match solar activity (Usoskin 2005).'
..pretty clear they don't believe it has much effect...or were you referring to the recent period, which they immediately discuss thus
'However, after 1975, temperatures rose while solar activity showed little to no long-term trend. This led the study to conclude, "...during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."'
Those quotes are from the 'intermediate' level discussion, you can have a butchers at the 'advanced' for more discussion and links to the effects of flux and climate.
that with the decades-long trends of declining sunspot activity and other indicators predicting a Maunder minimum that we are seeing similar complimentary trends in recorded temperatures. (http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/08/11600220-12-month-stretch-ending-in-april-is-warmest-on-record-noaa-says?lite) Definitely very glad there - I mean if the temperatures weren't "dropping" along with the sunspot activitiy that might imply the potential that there are other factors involved in climatology than just the Sun. Nah that would be crazy time though - the contents of the atmosphere being heated by said Sun could never impact the temperature measured.
Sherlock because he'd definitely agree with your lucid, deductive skills Lewis.
We have not had any "decades-long trends of declining sunspot activity" as Battsman claims. On the contrary, we have had 70 years of high solar activity. See for example http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/Zurich_Color_Small.jpg which shows the sunspot number for the last 250 years.
I wouldn't put too much trust in predictions of a forthcoming long minimum either. Only 6 years ago many scientists were predicting that this solar cycle would be another big one, for example http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/21dec_cycle24/ which forecast "one of the most intense cycles since record-keeping began almost 400 years ago". On the contrary cycle 24 was delayed and could well be the weakest since the 1920s. The mechanisms of solar activity are becoming better understood, but any long-term prediction should be taken with a large pinch of salt.
better understood ? Not according to spaceweather.com. The very delayed cycle 24 and the rapid and unexpected slowing of the solar subsurface "conveyor belts" are completely unexplained. Of the 16 or so AFAIRC theories, none are working or match current data. Nice to know there are still challenges.
well if you say the sun has nearly no control over the heating of the planet .. take the sun out of the equation equals very cold ...
so if we have the sun on gas mark 4 (highest) then turn it down to say 2 your gonna get a little chilly ...
but as always you an't gonna know till it happens..
but.. why is oil starting to soar... why is someone buying up all the gold(a gold ring will buy a tin of beans) and why is the usa trying to get a foothold in the nice warm middle east ..??
The Maunder minimum has been closely studied and its effect is thought to be a 1C cooling over the period. As we are now looking at a minimum of 2C warming any new Maunder minimum will only slow down the effect, and when the Maunder minimum ends there will be an accelerated rise in temperature as the cooling effect disappears.
As usual Lewis cherry-picks the papers to report upon, and then cherry-picks the findings of the report!
except that by then the oil, coal and gas will be long gone. Hopefully the religious freaks will have sustained themselves into extinction so the civilised remainder will have built decent nuclear energy plants not run by share holding PHBs. May be other energy sources that by some technological miracle will be affordable.
A little secret: They don't really know. Predicting the amplitude of future solar cycles (i.e. the "looming" next Maunder Minimum) is not presently a mature science. It's still just pure guesswork.
They. Don't. Know.
I'm not dissing the scientists involved in this work, but certain fields just simply are not yet fully matured. This is an example.
Maybe their speculation will prove correct, or maybe the future will allow them to gather unexpected data and further mature their models.
The Thames had frost fairs how many times between the 1400s and the early 1800s? And the Romans grew wine grapes between Hadrian's and the Antonine Wall around CE 120-450.
Climate changes. Without understanding the actual mechanism for this change, trying to "fix" it is more likely to cause trouble than anything else ... In my opinion, all the bravado & bluster, and all the money spent on "carbon" is a complete waste of time. All that cash & energy(sic) should be spent on trying to understand the root of the actual phenomena.
But that wouldn't put money in the pockets of the likes of Al Gore, who wouldn't be able to fuel his LargeJet[tm] enough to flit about the world on a whim.
 I know about the embankment, and the change in river flow. Still doesn't change the fact that it was a lot colder back then ... nor the lack of wine being produced in The Scottish Borders.
Is that really the best argument anti-warming proponents have? A much repeated fake fact not backed up by any historical record? I've seen this repeated so often now that I take its appearance as a 100% guarantee of lazy thinking.
Tacitus on Britain:
'The soil can bear all produce, except the olive, the vine, and other natives of warmer climes....’
See for more detail:
@John X Public: Quite a few vineyards are reported in the Domesday Book - the first really reliable written evidence (see e.g. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/medieval-warmth-and-english-wine/, which has further references). It can be sensibly extrapolated that at least some of them had been there since the Romanisation of England.
is inversely proportional to the quality of the beer. We have more vineyards now because of grotneys red dribble.
Good session beer doesn't tend to keep in warm climate so they have to make do with wine.
I've got a nectarine growing happily outside but the only thing round here that reaches the 30s its used to is on the rain gauge.
We had vines in roman time because we had romans not because we had their weather.
Have you done *any* basic investigation on this topic? I even gave you a link to an article that covered the topic really well.
Point 1. Idiots claim 'grapes grown at Hadrian's Wall in Roman times'
Point 2. Zero historical evidence for this claim (ref. Roman sources moaning about British weather)
Point 3. No one ever claimed Northumbria = Britain (Yorkshiremen excepted)
1) Ignoring the ad hominem, I've personally seen proof of Roman wine being grown on the Boarders. See this post for more.
2) The testimonial of a single disgruntled Roman doth not reality make.
3) Xenophobic and geographically challenged, too? I feel sorry for you.
I strongly suspect Lewis repeatedly posts an inflammatory article on climate change, and then promptly heads off to the pub to ignore any feedback, (maybe with fingers stuck firmly in ears). I really doubt he ever reads these comments, that point out objectively as possible, that he makes some fundamental mistakes in reading the science.
Two things main issues with this article (and with all/most of Lewis’s articles on climate change).
1) This is one scientific study on one small aspect of climate change in one geographical area using one data-set.
People who refuse to accept the science of AGW, tend to dismiss the science with conspiracy theories about scientists only working to present 'pro-AGW' research. To cherry-pick the odd study like this, accept it entirely without any of the same suspicions, then dismiss the vast majority of other studies including others from the same institute, clearly shows a prejudiced view.
Climate research (and reporting of that research), needs to look at all studies in an overall context. This one study might suggest a small? change to models for future global climate (depending on sun-spot activity of course), but doesn't change that AGW is occurring.
Bayesian analysis demands that rather than simply looking at each study one-by-one to decide if a complex multi-factor question like AGW is probably true, you start with the weighted consensus of the hundreds/thousands of studies that suggest it is true.
2) Even within the study, the first couple of paragraphs of the abstract clearly says "…However, the amplitude of solar forcing is small when compared with the climatic effects and, without reliable data sets, it is unclear which feedback mechanisms could have amplified the forcing…".
That gives an entirely different view from the article as written by Lewis which suggests it is “..sound solid evidence … significantly cooled the climate”
I enjoy Lewis’s articles on military tech – I don’t know how correct they are, but they seem like an honest point-of-view and interesting in any case. But his climate change articles indicate a writer than simply can’t/won’t provide a balance that reflects the state of the science on the subject at hand.
LP isn't paid to promote anti-AGW sentiment, he's paid to sell ads. He's expected to do that by creating page impressions. Proof that ppl have read the stories and not just accidentally clicked on them etc makes those impressions even more valuable to ad brokers. You can do that by letting ppl post in reply to the story, ergo this bit of El Reg.
LP knows less about climate science than he does about aero mil tech, but his super has clearly cottoned on to the fact that his dribblings result in page impressions that can be backed up by forum rants, errrr posts, proving that lots of ppl read the story and see the ads. He is therefore instructed to post stories (not necessarily news ones ;) about climate science.
It keeps the El Reg marketing dept happy, ergo LPs super is happy, LP is in a job, and we get to vent and rage on the internet as is our God given right. Job's a good 'un.
Re: "...the War On Carbon". Surely nobody *really* believes it's about carbon? The Merkins (and by extension Blighty) can't exert enough control of the Middle East - they've tried, but it just ain't happening. They therefore need to convince ppl to move away from oil as much as is practical. Saying "ooh it's for your kids and the plants benefit" plays much better than "sorry, we tried to control the oil but we lost".
Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, too much in the atmosphere and seas can have a rather bad effect (mainly on the ppl that already live in pretty inhospitable regions, so the politicians in the USA/UK aren't too fussed about that) but when some Arabs have your balls in a vice over oil you wanna do something about it. All we can do is reduce our reliance on oil, and not looking like a pussy doing it is more attractive.
I really wish this question could be debated rationally and I despair when an alleged journalist like Lewis writes such an obviously poorly reasoned and biased take on some interesting research.
It frustrates me that Mr Lewis can claim to be championing right and rational thinking against all 'carbon-alarmist' ranting while abandoning any attempt at reason. If he just came out with a nice clear 'nyah-nyah global warming is for poopy heads, I'll never change my mind' it would at least be honest, unlike this snide piece of biased 'reporting'.
A) The report does not say what Lewis insinuates it says.
There is a clear correlation between recent solar minima and cooling, no assertion of causation. Now it makes sense that there is some causation but that is just my opinion, Lewis should also make it clear that it is only his opinion, not established fact.
B) 'Past solar minimum = cooling' is not mutually exclusive with 'future solar minimum != cooling'
I'm not a climate scientist but I can think of at least one obvious reason why a solar minimum now might not have the same effect as in the past (given there was a causation chain). Conditions now are NOT THE SAME as they were 2800 years ago. For example, CO2 in the atmosphere is about 380 ppmv now and more like 260–280 ppmv in pre-industrial times. I'd be very interested in seeing what the impact of a solar minimum was in a pre-glacial era when C02 concentrations were more like current levels. I wonder if anyone is looking at that?
Lift your game Lewis or stop contributing sound and fury, signifying nothing.
The idea that short-term variations in the climate can be caused by variations in solar output is fairly un-controversial, despite what Lewis what like you to think. The long-term trend of warming caused by increased atmospheric greenhouse gases is also uncontroversial amongst those who understand the science, again despite what Lewis would like you to think. The fact that one may mask the other over a timescale of years or decades is unsurprising, but does not mean that one cancels out the other. Paragraphs such as the following are pure straw-man arguments:
However the idea that variations in the Sun have any serious effect on the climate is a controversial one. In particular the idea that the planet can expect a lengthy cool period until 2100 or beyond would tend to undermine the War On Carbon, and any suggestion that solar variability is as big a factor in climate as carbon emissions leads to intense hostility from many career climate scientists and large sections of the media (as we know well here at the Reg).
In fact, if we were to be in a solar-minimum with a noticeable impact on global warming (which we don't seem to be, since warming is still going on), we would have no way of knowing the scale of the minimum - it could go on for another century or end tomorrow. At the point at which it were to come to an end, the brakes would come off, and we would be even more screwed, as warming which would have happened over years, or decades, would all happen at once, and tipping points which would otherwise have been reached over that timescale would all be reached at once. In this scenario, we would have no hope of engineering a solution in the timescales available and we would be royally screwed.
If, however, we were to take it as a breathing space and use the time to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases, or even prepare remediation measures, such as CCS or even ge-engineering*, it could come as a blessing. The one thing we can't afford is 'business as usual'.
*It's risky, but my personal feeling is that ocean fertilisation with iron compounds may be the best option, which would also have the effect of going some way towards reducing the oceanic acidification which is a by-product of our pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and could also increase oceanic biomass.
So I guess you didn't notice NomNomNom's very early post saying that there is no influence from the sun on climate back oh, about three pages ago in the comments section.
The so called 'denialists" have a pretty consistent argument: the baselines aren't long enough, the science isn't mature, and obviously critical inputs are blindly ignored by alarmists. But when the alarmists criticize the 'denialists' they contradict each other.
Solar physicists, acting in the professionally skeptical way that scientists are supposed to, have found a variety of weaknesses in the "weakening sunspots" work to which you (and apparently Brauer at al.) refer. Not the least of these is the selection effect: the original authors tended to look for smaller and smaller and thus fainter and fainter spots ("pores") around the recent, extended solar minimum, and that seriously skewed their results. Like most things in solar physics, we can tell you answer --- but you'll have to wait an entire solar cycle (that's a 22-year magnetic cycle, not an 11-year activity cycle) before we can do it.
I'm more concerned that referees for "Nature Geoscience" have a poor understanding of current research solar physics. It calls into question the validity of papers that reference work in that field.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019