Slashdot Mirror
Double-Dynamo Model Predicts 60% Fall In Solar Output In The 2030s
sycodon points out reports of a new model of solar dynamics from University of Northumbria professor Valentina Zharkova, predictions from which "suggest that solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s to conditions last seen during the 'mini ice age' that began in 1645."
Zharkova's model, based on observation of solar magnetism, "draws on dynamo effects in two layers of the Sun, one close to the surface and one deep within its convection zone."
Zharkova’s and her colleages at three other universities believe that this two-layer model "could explain aspects of the solar cycle with much greater accuracy than before — possibly leading to enhanced predictions of future solar behaviour. “We found magnetic wave components appearing in pairs; originating in two different layers in the Sun’s interior. They both have a frequency of approximately 11 years, although this frequency is slightly different [for both] and they are offset in time.”
If this is true, clearly we need to be putting MORE CO2 into the atmosphere, not less. That's just science.
Not solar output falling 60%, which would lead to completely frozen Earth, but solar activity, i.e. the 11 year sunspot cycle. Predicting levels near or at those found during the Maunder minimum. This does imply some reduced level of solar output.
I wonder how the oil companies will feel about "Global Warming" if they are asked to do everything they can to accelerate it.
Well, except that every solar cycle since I can remember, I've heard somebody predicting that the next solar cycle is about the start a new Maunder minimum, and it will mean mini ice age. Every one.
This one is a prediction based on fitting a model only to the last three cycles. i'm not impressed.
For reference, here's the MSFC page on solar cycle modelling: http://solarscience.msfc.nasa....
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Until we have an actual theory about what is going on, this is just adding epicycles. And bad ones at that, since we do not have sufficient observations to even create decent epicycles
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
... just means it will be double in 2060.
Been waiting a long time to bring out the cold weather gear.
At full throttle!
An 11 year period would have a frequency of 1/11 or 0.091 cycles per year
refuse to do anything about global climate change. They know it disproportionally affects the poor so they keep pushing for more of it.
Just curious, are you the same guy who takes every single article and twists it into a political argument and blames it on the republicans?
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
don't believe. investigate.
This is why I'm building an underground compound powered by a nuclear reactor with a vast internal green house.
Freeze or fry... I'm over it.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
It sounds like there's somewhat of a correlation though, if the last time this was seen was before a "mini ice age".
Well, except nobody knowns whether the Maunder minimum even had anything to do with the little ice age, except for the coincidence of timing. The best understanding at the moment is that the little ice age was due to volcanic eruptions: http://news.agu.org/press-rele...
It sounds like there's somewhat of a correlation though, if the last time this was seen was before a "mini ice age". Do the electromagnetic bursts from the sunspots also have something to do with the regulation of earth's temperature?
People have been looking for a solar cycle-weather connection for years, but not really finding one.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Is Northumbria somewhere in Middle Earth?
A quick search on Wikipedia shows that it's actually in Newcastle upon Tyne, which is just a short drive North from Dog Snogging. The chancellor of the University of Northumbria (and I'm not making this up), is Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, which is a name I wish I had.
Seriously, it all sounds like something out of a Christopher Moore novel.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Do you always respond to your own posts to make it look like somebody agrees with you?
Good, inexpensive web hosting
This subject showed up in a lot of submissions, but do wonder about the timing; not the immediate future but good enough to cause concern, not far enough in the future to forget about. These cycles coming together for the first time since the 1600's.
Soon to be featured in a denier argument near you!
"OK OK so burning fossil fuels DOES cause global warming, but we NEED to burn fossil fuels in order to compensate for the double solar whammy which will otherwise freeze the earth solid!"
Just curious, are you the same guy who takes every single article and twists it into a political argument and blames it on the republicans?
Yes.
Just curious, are you the same guy who takes every single article and twists it into a political argument and blames it on the republicans?
Why yes, how nice of you to notice! I also love to suck lots of cocks, and since you've been so nice to me I'll even swallow instead of spitting! What state do you live in, I have a whole list of gloryholes I tour through, I'll let you know when I'm at the one closest to you!
Activity != output, dumbass.
Go outside and fetch a pail of air!
The study was financed by the Koch brothers.
The original paper mentions nothing of a mini-ice age or anything of the sort you fucking science reporters.
Lets see a few others come to the same conclusion.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
I am sure the title was carefully worded to receive as much attention from the press as possible. When Fox-watching Joe Sixpack hears it he will think the sun's total output will drop that much. This will get the climate change deniers on Fox and in congress something great to misinterpret (even though they're not scientists, to use some of their words) and even though it is stupid and wrong, the debate over the "controversy" will run for years while they do nothing to attempt to prevent coming disasters.
I'll be 72 in 2030 with no kids to worry about. Should I care if Earth turns into an ice cube that my cremation will do little to help?
damn mayans, they were right... just a little off.
on the plus side, that should offset the effects of global warming for a little while
Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that
I just installed solar powered heating!
Mr Gore, just because you lost out on the big ticket prize doesn't mean you can flood our website with your baseless drivel. Besides, last month you promised me a certain favor, but you never showed up. I was in that confessional booth for hours asking for "a Brazilian priest", just like you said to do. I was humiliated.
Yes i do.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Uh, ... I mean ... Yes i do.
The research concluding it led to the LIA is wrong. This paper clearly dismisses solar activity as playing a role in the LIA. http://www.rtcc.org/2013/12/23...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ..Is what the summary is referring to back in 1645. Honestly this cold spell rates pretty low on the list of concerning areas on the graph at the top.
That sounds like it should be illegal.
The activity or even output of the sun has already been disconnected from the current state of climate change on the Earth according to the IPCC reports so all of this might be academically interesting but moot as far as climate change or its ecological or economic consequences.
Whelp, 10 meter DX is shit for the next few decades.
I'm not a climate change denier, I believe the climate is changing, and we should try to limit the amount of CO2 we put into the atmosphere, but I have in recent weeks begun to question the link between human activity and climate change. At one time, singers like Bruce Cocburn claimed (it was part of a song) it was ethane from cows that was causing climate change. Human pollution is a problem, but I don't see it as a direct link, not so much anymore. The truth of the matter is that the earth's climate has been getting hotter for at least 12,000 years. There were no gasoline powered engines at the beginning, and few humans. When Lake Agassiz drained from Northern Canada, there was a great flood, recorded biblically, and backed by archaeological evidence (farmers which had been farming in the Bosphorus region of what is now Turkey, had to flee to higher ground, and they brought agriculture to Europe about 8200 years ago. A huge amount of melt water from the last ice age was released when ice preventing its flow into the ocean finally melted. But ice has continued to melt. Glaciers have shrunk for years, and ice is melting from Greenland. Lately its been popular to blame those pesky humans and their gasoline powered engines, but 8200 years ago? There were fewer than 10 million people in the world 8200 years ago, and no cars (70,000 years ago its thought there were only about 2200 people). So they might have used coal, but they weren't smelting steel, it was all household. And a huge amount of ice melted. Why? Solar output? What if we are on an upturn right now? I understand about CO2 levels, I understand about plastic pollution, they are things we have to get a serious handle on. I can see that sea levels are rising and ice is melting too. But the melting has been going on for too long to blame recent events. I just don't buy all of it. Its like we saw an event, looked for a cause, found something that might be contributing (and it is likely contributing), and blamed all of it on the thing. That's the part I don't swallow.
It isn't a 60% drop in solar output, which would kill all life on Earth, but a 60% drop in SUNSPOTS. Why the fuck someone made that headline up without using "head up arse" as an excuse is beyond anyone's ken.
Given that we would spend only 1% of GDP, your hysteria is TWO ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE when claiming we'd spend ALL of our GDP.
And your idiocy is shown by your claim "most likely isn't even a problem" when it's less than 1% likely not a problem.
Play russian roulette with an automatic: there's a chance it will jam. Don't play fucking russian roulette with the planet everyone lives on, asshole.
we're talking about a bit of a major event here, and predicted to happen in fifteen years? I'll be in my fifties, ya cunt! That's barely half a lifetime!
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
I just realised, I don't know much about the sun.
Is there a good non-fiction book about the sun?
And when you dismiss all data that doesn't agree with you-- which is what you're doing-- then it is completely impossible to ever overturn your conspiracy theory that all the science ever done on climate happens to be wrong.
In fact, it's not. This is currently the best hypothesis that fits the data, including the dates. There may be a better hypothesis later. This is the way science is done; you gather data, make a hypothesis that fits the data, and see if later work confirms or overturns the hypothesis.
Paleoclimate resesearch, and most specifically modelling the climate variations in the late middle ages is indeed difficult, because not only don't we have contemporary measurements of all the input parameters, we don't have good measurements of the temperature, either. (Modelling contemporary climate is much more accurate-- we have lots of data on both the input (the solar output is well measured) and the climate (not just average temperatures, but diurnal variation, seasonal variation, latitude and longitude variation, etc. all of which must fit the modelling, although the AGW debaters only ever look at the year-by-year changes.)
The paper referenced, however does use a pretty convincing proxy for temperature change in the little ice age: they looked at the dead flora preserved in the Arctic ice cap. This dates the little ice age to a start in 1375-1400, with a second cooling period around 1450 AD. That is about the time when the Vikings abandoned their settlements in Greenland (they kept Church records; the last document in Greenland (a marriage certificate) was dated 1408.)
Unfortunately, this is THREE HUNDRED YEARS before the Maunder minimum. So it's really hard to think that the Maunder minimum caused the little ice age.
So, here's the summary.
1. There is no well-understood mechanism connecting sunspot numbers to climate.
2. The only connection between the Maunder minimum and the little ice age is a rough coincidence in timing.
3. But the more detailed examination of timing shows that the little ice age started much earlier.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Thank you universe. I've spent my entire life sweating in hot humid weather and the one redeeming thing about getting old is that the heat doesn't affect you in the same way as when you're younger. Its a well known thing that after a certain age you start to feel colder. No more sweating profusely when its 90. But of course, now they predict that the suns output will drop. WTF?
So with that in mind, I wouldn't be listening to this article.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
This is just in time for GOP primary candidates to take the whole thing out of context and pander to Koch brothers. Damn!
Thank God for global warming!
There are two competing definitions of the "Little Ice Age": one began with the return to more typical average temperatures after the Medieval Warm Period and lasted hundred of years, and the other began with significantly colder temperatures lasting under a hundred years, starting around the Maunder Minimum. I think the latter definition is more reasonable and useful. By the former definition, we might still be in the Little Ice Age.
And when you dismiss all data that doesn't agree with you-- which is what you're doing-- then it is completely impossible to ever overturn your conspiracy theory that all the science ever done on climate happens to be wrong.
Let me also note that apparently, it is possible to observe solar activity prior to direct observation by measuring carbon 14 in tree rings as a proxy. As a result, it is claimed that there were other periods of lowered solar activity from about 1000 AD through to the Maunder minimum.
So, what you're now saying is that the little ice age is not due to the Maunder minimum, but you're hypothesizing that it might have been due to some other sunspot minimum for which we have only proxy data.
Unfortunately,
(1) proxy data on solar activity is somewhat harder to interpret (see, for example, review article here: http://solarphysics.livingrevi... )
(2) nobody looking at the record of proxy reconstruction has been able to find a firm correlation to global climate (although there are some regional climate correlations),
(3) there still isn't any accepted mechanism connecting sunspot number to climate,
For example, there were periods of alleged reduced solar activity between 1280 and 1350 and between 1460 and 1550.
This analysis looks like you have a result you want, and you're going back through the data trying to select data to try to fit the result. If this were actual science, you would need a correlation coefficient. How well does the variation in (proxies for) sunspot number fit the variation in (proxies for) climate?
All of the scientists doing the actual studies of this sort say the effects seen are far too small to explain the current warming trend: see, for example Solanki et al. 2004 study of sunspot numbers over the past 11,000 years and climate: http://www.nature.com/nature/j... "we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades", or the review of dozens of studies here: http://www.skepticalscience.co...
But, returning to the topic, we seem to agree: the little ice age cannot be attributed to the Maunder minimum.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Dr. Zarkov's was pretty spot on about the strange weather being caused by that mystery beam from planet Mongo. Is Emperor Ming now vibrating the very Sun itself to destroy us!?
So, what you're now saying is that the little ice age is not due to the Maunder minimum, but you're hypothesizing that it might have been due to some other sunspot minimum for which we have only proxy data.
No, I'm saying that we have some evidence that the Little Ice Age (Wikipedia indicates this should be capitalized) was contemporary with unusually low solar output over a span of time including the Maunder minimum (up to the weaker Dalton minimum which included the Tambora eruption in 1815). That would be necessary for an actual cause and effect between reduced solar output and a cooler climate.
Further, sunspot minimums do appear to correlate with reduced solar output, so it is possible that there were a series of several such episodes over those centuries in question and that they caused the cooler climate of the Little Ice Age in the first place.
(1) proxy data on solar activity is somewhat harder to interpret
Than what? Sure, proxy data for solar output is much harder to interpret than direct observation. But nothing back then was directly observed. It's all proxies.
(2) nobody looking at the record of proxy reconstruction has been able to find a firm correlation to global climate (although there are some regional climate correlations),
Well, maybe they have and they're just choosing not to interpret it that way. I don't buy that our temperature proxies are good enough to determine the difference between regional and global climate once you get beyond the 19th century - especially given what I see as significant ideological and institutional biases towards exaggerating the effects of anthropogenic global warming. Downplaying global effects of solar output over the past millennium (especially during both the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period) would be consistent with that.
(3) there still isn't any accepted mechanism connecting sunspot number to climate,
For the solar activity of the past couple of centuries, higher sunspot number corresponded to a slightly brighter and hotter Sun (the lower output of sunspots is countered by the brighter regions around the sunspots). Even if there is no other effect than to reduce solar output for a few decades to the level of solar output between sunspot cycles, that's still half a watt less per square meter which is about a third to half the heating thought to be contributed from carbon dioxide.
All of the scientists doing the actual studies of this sort say the effects seen are far too small to explain the current warming trend: see, for example Solanki et al. 2004 study of sunspot numbers over the past 11,000 years and climate: http://www.nature.com/nature/j... "we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades", or the review of dozens of studies here: http://www.skepticalscience.co...
I couldn't help but notice that the study you linked to concludes that the Sun is at an exceptionally high level of activity compared to the past 11,400 years.
We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode. Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades.
I'm a lukewarmist, I believe there is some effect. But this is a huge factor to downplay.
While there is indeed a higher total solar irradiance (TSI) with higher solar activity, that variation in irradiance is plus or minus one tenth of one percent. If, as you suggest, this is driving the observed warming, then there is a huge amplifier in the system.
But if there's a huge amplifier in the system, you have to explain why this doesn't amplify the contribution of infrared re-radiated by greenhouse gasses. Why would some input forcing get amplified, and other input forcing not amplified?
We measure all of this. When the scientists say "this effect can't account for the warming," this is because they are dealing with measured quantities.
(I will also note that TSI has a different warming signature from greenhouse effect: the greenhouse effect changes increase night time temperatures much more than TSI)
Basically, what you're saying boils down to "I won't pay attention to what the scientists actually say, and I haven't done a back of the envelope calculation showing it's plausible that they might be wrong, but I just refuse to believe them."
I'm a lukewarmist, I believe there is some effect.
And I'm a scientist. I look at the data.
But this is a huge factor to downplay.
One tenth of one percent.
I hate to keep harping on the same things, but the effect of solar variability has been analyzed in mind-numbing detail in the last few decades, and it just isn't there. Try the summary in chapter 8 of the WG-1 report
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/...
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
"Of particular importance is the sun's extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation, which peaks during the years around solar maximum. Within the relatively narrow band of EUV wavelengths, the sun’s output varies not by a minuscule 0.1%, but by whopping factors of 10 or more. This can strongly affect the chemistry and thermal structure of the upper atmosphere."
that variation in irradiance is plus or minus one tenth of one percent
Which is 1.3 watts per square meter at the top of the atmosphere. That's almost the same as the current estimate of heating forcing from from elevated levels of CO2. The forcing from that level of solar variation apparently is estimated to be a tenth of the actual variation in irradiance.
I hate to keep harping on the same things, but the effect of solar variability has been analyzed in mind-numbing detail in the last few decades, and it just isn't there.
Two obvious problems with the assertion. First, decades aren't a very long span of time. We don't know how much solar variability there has been before we started reliably measuring it late last century. Second, there's still that matter of the ideological and institutional bias. There's a right conclusion to this phenomenon which requires solar output to be a minor contributor to global warming. If that conclusion is wrong, then it doesn't matter how much mind-numbing detail has gone into this.
you just like saying "double dynamo".
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
that variation in irradiance is plus or minus one tenth of one percent
Which is 1.3 watts per square meter at the top of the atmosphere. That's almost the same as the current estimate of heating forcing from from elevated levels of CO2.
Nice back of the envelope calculation! but you're off by a factor of 6.
Solar irradiance is absorbed by the disk area of the earth, pi r^2. But the earth's surface area is 4 pi r^2. And the solar energy absorbed is multiplied by the (1-albedo). So you're off by 4/(1-a), where a is about 0.30 to 0.35.
... and then you're assuming the difference between zero solar activity, and current solar activity. But over the time scale over which the global warming we're discussing occurs, the change in TSI isn't that high. Here's a graph of the historical Total Solar Irradiance:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/...
and the variation between 1900 and 2015 is considerably less than that.
I hate to keep harping on the same things, but the effect of solar variability has been analyzed in mind-numbing detail in the last few decades, and it just isn't there.
Two obvious problems with the assertion. First, decades aren't a very long span of time. We don't know how much solar variability there has been before we started reliably measuring it late last century.
We know that it doesn't explain the warming this century.
Second, there's still that matter of the ideological and institutional bias
With no actual evidence, you are assuming ideological and institutional bias as in input assumption. You're assuming NOAA is biased. NASA is biased. The National Science Foundation is biased. The National Climatic Data Center is biased. The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project is biased. The British Met office (formerly the Meteorological Office) is biased. The Climate Research Unit is biased. The Japanese Meteorological agency is biased. The Australian Bureau of Meteorology is biased. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization is biased. The Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique is biased. The Max-Planck-Institut für Meteorologie is biased
These have all made models and measurements confirming the greenhouse effect. ...isn't it slightly stretching credibility that all of these institutions-- and many others-- on four continents, all happen to be biased, and all biased in exactly the same way?
But, yes, if you assume that pretty much everybody who has ever studied the field is biased, and you can ignore their work... well, yes, you can ignore a heck of a lot of data, yes indeed.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Wrong address.
You are looking for the imaginary idiots in your own head.
So you're saying that the climate has influences beyond humans?
We know that it [change in solar irradiance] doesn't explain the warming this century.
Doesn't fully explain warming this century.
Correct. Changes in total solar irradiance is, at most, a small contribution to global warming-- a few percent at most. We agree on this now?
Let me point something out: the amount of funding of climate science, and the amount of funding of organizations denying climate science, is roughly the same. Basically: for every scientist working on understanding climate, there is one person dedicated full-time to discrediting their work.
But the odd thing is: despite all the funding, none of work funded to attack climate science has yet come up with an alternate theory that is successful in explaining the data-- not even one that looks like it may some day come close to being successful.
With no actual evidence, you are assuming ideological and institutional bias as in input assumption. You're assuming NOAA is biased. NASA is biased. The National Science Foundation is biased. The National Climatic Data Center is biased. The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project is biased. The British Met office (formerly the Meteorological Office) is biased. The Climate Research Unit is biased. The Japanese Meteorological agency is biased. The Australian Bureau of Meteorology is biased. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization is biased. The Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique is biased. The Max-Planck-Institut für Meteorologie is biased
Um, yes.A preponderance of biased organizations doesn't rebut my point.
Actually, I was listing the organizations doing work in climate science to point out how absurd what you were proposing is. All of the people actually doing science are biased? Do you really believe that? You don't have any credible evidence that any of these scientific organizations are biased, much less all of them.
Have you considered being as skeptical toward the people who are attempting to discredit the science as you are to the actual science? Who is telling you that all these scientific organizations are biased, and why would you believe them?
But, yes, if you assume that pretty much everybody who has ever studied the field is biased, and you can ignore their work... well, yes, you can ignore a heck of a lot of data, yes indeed.
That's why I'm waiting for future data.
Sorry, but no, you're not. No possible amount of data can ever convince you once you have decided that every science agency in the world is lying and you will only believe science that is not coming from scientists.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Activity does not equal output. Yes, there will be less energy output, but it only buys us a little time so we can try to straighten out our CO2 problem.
"There is no god but allah" - well, they got it half right.
You just did a back of the envelope calculation. Do it again, but this time inserting actual numbers. You can start here: http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/...
This is science, not argumentation 101. Don't make stuff up, do the calculation.
A few percent.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
This strikes me as quite possible. If there are dynamos in the sun, and they have slightly different rates, and especially if they are also influencing each other's spin and rate because of interaction (think feedback), I can totally see a pair of LFOs summing to approximate the sunspot activity records. And thus solar output to some degree.
It's not as simple as two LFOs summing, but I could see two main LFOs summing and having their frequency feedback on each other a bit, stabilizing but not at the same rate (think other LFOs driving their frequencies perhaps) plus a bunch of smaller LFOs. The little I know about magnetic fields in stellar objects (very little!) and the whole lot I know about LFOs :) makes me think this might actually be a good model, or a good start to a model. And I really suspect that this is more or less what they did, just with fancier terms and a whole bunch of data.
I would think there's a lot more than two. It's the sun, after all. It's really big! That seems like a low number of component parts to any dynamic system there. But two main ones with feedback and spinoffs, etc.... Maybe 10 more just as big but in further layers inside the sun... This kind of thing would take an awful lot of science, and I kind of suspect we have no way of really grokking what's going on *inside the sun*. ... yet.
I just deleted my plug and explanation, but check out Karl von Reichenbach if you're really interested in doing some radical science with stars. I really suspect astrophysics won't be able to explain much until the science he did is fully resurrected and expanded upon. I think it might be a humongous piece of the puzzle.
But the solar variation is not ten times as much. We measure the solar output. We know that this is not responsible for the current warming because we measure it.
You keep repeating that word "bias." The only bias I've seen you refer to is "every organization that produces a scientific result that confirms climate scientific models is biased." As far as I can tell, the only evidence you have for that purported bias is that you don't want to credit their results.
I have a suggestion: consider the possibility that the people who are telling you that all these institutions are biased might, themselves, be biased.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
But the solar variation is not ten times as much. We measure the solar output. We know that this is not responsible for the current warming because we measure it.
Nobody measured solar output during the Maunder minimum.
You are confusing two different things.
Solar variation is not the cause of the current warming. Got that? Good.
The climate in 1700 is somewhat harder to model. You quoted what I already said, and I see no reason not to just repeat it:
Well, except nobody knowns whether the Maunder minimum even had anything to do with the little ice age, except for the coincidence of timing. The best understanding at the moment is that the little ice age was due to volcanic eruptions:
That seems straightforward. Nobody knows if there's a connection.
Your comment on that post is
We see here a willingness by researchers to rule out conflating factors despite having insufficient evidence. That is IMHO evidence for the bias I referred to.
I don't understand your logic here. Those "conflating factors" in analyzing climate of the 14-19 centuries don't have anything to do with current climate. For that we have measurements of solar activity.
People have been looking for a solar activity/climate connection for literally hundreds of years*. They haven't found it yet. Understanding the connection between the Maunder minimum and the little ice age, if one exists, would be a huge advance in climate science. But it's not really possible to do science on the basis of "here's something we don't know because the data is poor or non-existent. Maybe there is something we don't understand, but we don't even know if there's anything there."
However, here is something to think about. If it were discovered that the solar variation during the Maunder minimum caused the temperature drop of the Little Ice Age, that would make the climate scientists say "oh my god, the highest estimates of warming due to the greenhouse effect are the right ones; it's a lot worse that the conservative estimates."
Because if the Maunder minimum actually did cause the little ice age, that implies that there must be a big positive feedback loop between radiative forcing and climate. The exact size of the feedback look is the main uncertainty in climate. The short term feedbacks are getting to be well understood. But if there's a large long-term feedback-- one that hasn't really kicked in yet-- then the greenhouse effect is really much worse than the average of current estimates.
But, in either case, whether the Maunder minimum does or doesn't explain all or part of the little ice age isn't really relevant to the question of whether we understand current climate, because we don't need proxies for solar activity to understand current climate: we have measurements. Saying "we haven't found a connection between the Maunder minimum and the climate" isn't bias-- it's just a statement of what we don't know.
--
*mostly in the century-long series of studies trying to understand the cause of ice-age cycles.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
We can't analyze data we don't have.
I think this conversation has pretty much reached a dead end.
You're right: when you assume that scientists are all biased, and all the actual analysis and results and data and models can be dismissed without the effort of paying any attention to them because you have already decided they're biased, you can indeed draw any conclusion you like.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com