Global Warming Skeptics

Full Version: Javiers, comment
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.

March 31, 2017 at 11:35 am
Quote:But since we have been observing a consistently strong phase since 1950, it is highly likely that we will experience another low point in 50 to 100 years’ time. It could be every bit as intense as the Maunder Minimum,
You don’t get very far in science by making things up. We are still going up in the millennial Eddy solar cycle, that bottomed during the LIA, around the time of the Maunder minimum.

Grand solar minima are pretty rare events, around 35 in 10,000 years, and considering that they usually come in clusters like Wolf/Spörer/Maunder, it might very well be another 500 years before we see one again.

They display such ignorance of past grand solar minima, that it is difficult that their work is any good. The idea that because we got no low solar activity in the past 70 years means we should get it in the next few decades is silly. We are talking about pretty long cycles. The Romans had a millennium of above average solar activity between the Greek minimum of 350 BC and the Roman minimum of 650 AD.
[Image: Figure-6.png]
Additional comments starting HERE


March 31, 2017 at 11:56 am

I agree that it’s too soon for Maunder-style cold spell.
The millennial-scale solar cycle does seem to be reflected in climate. The peaks of the Holocene warm periods are all about 1000 years apart, and likewise the troughs of the cold periods.


Holocene Optimum: ~5 Ka
Egyptian WP: ~4 Ka
Minoan WP: ~3 Ka
Roman WP: ~2 Ka
Medieval WP: ~1 Ka
Modern WP: peak might be now but more likely in another century, two or three
Bronze Age Collapse: ~3.3 Ka
Greek Dark Ages: ~2.3 Ka
Dark Ages CP: ~1.3 Ka
LIA CP: ~300 years ago
  • Javier

    March 31, 2017 at 12:08 pm

    Yes, the cyclicity of Holocene climate is undeniable. It is heavily contested because it means we should be warming regardless of CO2, and because it also means solar variability in the millennial time-scale is both cyclic and has a strong effect on climate. Astrophysicists hate that idea because they cannot explain it, but paleoclimatologists are very comfortable with it, because they see the evidence in multiple proxies all over the world.

  • Gloateus

    March 31, 2017 at 12:22 pm

    All the while that evidence has been mounting, year after year, for the global extent of centennial- and millenial-scale cycles, consensus “climate science” keeps trying to d@ny the existence of these observations, ie scientific facts. These inconvenient truths were already well established before the CACA c@onspiracy replaced Communism as the main challenge to peace, freedom and prosperity.