3 ms·

I agree with the first sentence and disagree with the second, and the citations also disagree with the second sentence, because we are moving into a downturn ph

I agree with the first sentence and disagree with the second, and the citations also disagree with the second sentence, because we are moving into a downturn phase. And I love the third sentence because I had to read it twice. :) There are lots of disagreements about whether it will be 2024 or 2025 that the ENSO cycle gets cooler but there is zero disagreement that solar radiation will start decreasing next year. https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-021-00199-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-021-00199-z https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/ensodisc.shtml https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/e... https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2020/what-will-solar-cycle-25-look-like-sun-prediction-model https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2020/what-will-solar-cy...

defrost 3y ago
The third sentence is kind of key to understanding the long term certainty of the AGW case against the difficulty in predicting short term weather and short(ish) term climate cell cycles. > there is zero disagreement that solar radiation will start decreasing next year. This is not supported by any of your three links; two are on ENSO, the third on solar magnetic activity (unrelated to the solar visible spectrum energy -> IR energy that drives climate change) From the nasa solar link: * “There is no indication that we are currently approaching a Maunder-type minimum in solar activity,” ( 'solar activity' referes to sunspots, flares, etc. NOT to radiant energy in the visible spectrum ) * But even if the Sun dropped into a grand minimum, there’s no reason to think Earth would undergo another Ice Age; ( NASA scientists do not believe that solar mag activity is related to climate changes ) * not only do scientists theorize that the Little Ice Age occurred for other reasons, ( again, the European "Little Ice Age" not related to sun spots ) * but in our contemporary world, greenhouse gases far surpass the Sun’s effects when it comes to changes in Earth’s climate. Actual flucuations of the suns visible spectrum activity are very very small compared to other more dominant effects.

defrost 3y ago

The third sentence is kind of key to understanding the long term certainty of the AGW case against the difficulty in predicting short term weather and short(ish) term climate cell cycles. > there is zero disagreement that solar radiation will start decreasing next year. This is not supported by any of your three links; two are on ENSO, the third on solar magnetic activity (unrelated to the solar visible spectrum energy -> IR energy that drives climate change) From the nasa solar link: * “There is no indication that we are currently approaching a Maunder-type minimum in solar activity,” ( 'solar activity' referes to sunspots, flares, etc. NOT to radiant energy in the visible spectrum ) * But even if the Sun dropped into a grand minimum, there’s no reason to think Earth would undergo another Ice Age; ( NASA scientists do not believe that solar mag activity is related to climate changes ) * not only do scientists theorize that the Little Ice Age occurred for other reasons, ( again, the European "Little Ice Age" not related to sun spots ) * but in our contemporary world, greenhouse gases far surpass the Sun’s effects when it comes to changes in Earth’s climate. Actual flucuations of the suns visible spectrum activity are very very small compared to other more dominant effects.