I could totally accept that few would engage this discussion, because of topic fatigue. Yet there are matters that deserve attention. First the Little Ice Age, that obviously severely affected Europe and also had (less well documented and synchronized) effects worldwide. During that time there were not direct solar-cycle observations, but proxies indicate that sunspot numbers went to ~zero for ~4 cycles. I don't think this is in dispute. At the same time volcanic proxies point to some cooling that way. So attribution to a single source is difficult, and besides CO2 was much lower than now. Anyway, it happened. Current sunspot cycle (we number it 24) is waning from a peak below 100, which is low. If there were prompt, strong, direct, overwhelming effects on global T, we'd already be cold. Yet not, but please do not make all your conclusions yet. In earlier discussions here on solar cycle, I suggested that nobody is predicting the next several. This turns out to not be the case. You should be aware of Predicting Solar Cycle 24 and beyond Mark A. Clilverd, Ellen Clarke, Thomas Ulich, Henry Rishbeth, and Martin J. Jarvis SPACE WEATHER, VOL. 4, S09005, doi:10.1029/2005SW000207, 2006 They took SSN records, found longer-than-11-yr periodicities, and cast those forward: They put current cycle 24 below 50 (it did get higher) and put the next two higher as well. This is the only formal prediction I have seen, and please present any others here. That the sun will return to LIA-type action has been mentioned: Living with a Capricious Star: What Drives the Solar Cycle? - Universe Today But I have not found such predictions published, based on, well, anything. And yet it could, right? Sun just does whatever it does. Several future 'nothing' sunspot cycles, only typical volcanic fluxes, and rather a lot of CO2. Climate ->? Is that, truly, hard to predict? If instead you favor Clivard et al. 2006, 3 weak solar cycles (5,6,7) slightly reduced global T. Maybe like that in the few next cycles. Maybe, if you prefer to consider CO2 as transparent to infrared.
I appreciate the effort. To bring things into perspective, we probably need to map the change in solar heat per m{2} as a function of: solar output orbital distance change (the Hansen starting point) Later, looking at something else ... Arctic sailing. Bob Wilson
I found another recent publication that used Beryllium-10 isotope as proxy for solar cycles over much longer time. With this they anticipate another grand solar minimum (like during little ice age) from 2050 to 2250. If anyone here wants to read about it... That, along with above-average volcanic forcing, and presuming against CO2 effects, could indeed deliver another little ice age. So we might consider alternatives to slow (as current) +T from CO2. I certainly do not support faster (than now) +T in next few decades. The global ocean is not done speaking to us.
The good news is STERIO-B is communicating with NASA again: Hello, STEREO-B! NASA Regains Contact with Long-Lost Sun Probe We should get modern metrics of the solar activity. Bob Wilson
Now I have seen several predictions of low sunspots for next 1 or 2 (or more?) solar cycles. However meaningful their stated mechanisms may be. So perhaps we'd look at watts per m^2 because that has been done as well. Also, watts per m^2 (retained) by CO2. As I understand, thiat metric is much less controversial than +T per CO2 increase. The Little Ice Age included within it a shorter (solar) Maunder Minimum, and substantial volcanic 'ejections'. If such could come again, without volcanoes, and with current higher CO2, might be a matter of interest for discussion here.
Another data source: 2017 is so far the second-hottest year on record thanks to global warming | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | The Guardian Total solar irradiance data (red) and linear trend (orange) since 1950 from the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics Solar Irradiance Data Center at the University of Colorado. Illustration: Dana Nuccitelli Global average surface temperature data from the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Illustration: Dana Nuccitelli Correlation is not causation, so there may yet be some physics or chemistry we don't yet know. But I am patient ... old but patient. Bob Wilson
