Scientists warning of "Grand Solar Minimum" leading to global cooling

[Reality Check]

Thanks for that link! ...

She has no prediction of temperatures, George. She and her co-authors have an unrelated to planets, simplistic model of solar activity. They take 1 aspect of the Sun (the solar background magnetic field). They correlate 35 years of data to that aspect. They speculate that a quadruple component of that field is a proxy for solar activity because they get a good fit for that data. They cannot predict activity beyond 2040. Everything else is the personal opinion of one author, Dr. Valentina Zharkova (not a climate scientist), making obvious mistakes about climate science.

The actual prediction for 2020 (cycle 25) is ~80% lower sunspot numbers than this cycle with ~40% in cycle 26. There is no prediction in the papers of no sunspots.

[George]

She has no prediction of temperatures, George.

Yes, but a cooling trend during the imminent, but short, solar minimum was stated. I was unsure, however, to what extent her view is on this. Was her suggestion of snows in June something she holds as likely or not so likely? It would be nice if such claims came with a percent likelihood to "eschew obfuscation".

She and her co-authors have an unrelated to planets, simplistic model of solar activity. They take 1 aspect of the Sun (the solar background magnetic field). They correlate 35 years of data to that aspect. They speculate that a quadruple component of that field is a proxy for solar activity because they get a good fit for that data. They cannot predict activity beyond 2040.

That's a good point. Her Q&A session, however, seems to introduce planetary behavior as a supportive and separate line of evidence.

Everything else is the personal opinion of one author, Dr. Valentina Zharkova (not a climate scientist), making obvious mistakes about climate science.

She called herself a solar physicist and her works do well to support that claim, I suppose. Pointing out the magnetic field correlations should add some (tiny or not) input for climate scientists. Time will tell.

The actual prediction for 2020 (cycle 25) is ~80% lower sunspot numbers than this cycle with ~40% in cycle 26. There is no prediction in the papers of no sunspots.

Her point that these are predictions that will be tested soon (5 or so years) makes this all the more interesting.

She does state how small, 0.1%, the variation is in solar radiation over the centuries. Her argument seems to be more about how changes in the solar magnetic field strength will affect cosmic ray flux that are held to affect cloud generation, but she didn't spend a lot of time on this, possibly to avoid getting away from her solar activity focus.

One reason I was interested in this video, but not in the video (IIRC) is a concern I have and can be stated by her from an interview, "We must not ignore the effects of global warming and assume that it isn't happening. “The Sun buys us time to stop these carbon emissions... The next minimum might give the Earth a chance to reduce adverse effects from global warming." Much cooler than predicted temperatures, if any, would greatly affect things.

[profloater]

This cycle is about every 11 years so not a long effect. I have seen correlations (not necessary causally linked) to, for example, fur trade figures over many years linked to rainfall locally in Canada. So perhaps there is a climate effect but we should not allow that to reduce confidence in man made global warming. I have looked at correlation with Jupiter's eccentric orbit but tantalisingly it goes out of phase over many cycles. We should not try to guess about whether 0.1% is significant, the heat balance is sensitive to small changes so maybe it is, maybe it isn't. one degree shift in the tilt axis can bring on an ice age it seems. Meanwhile CO2 emissions continue.

[Reality Check]

Yes, but a cooling trend during the imminent, but short, solar minimum was stated. ...

She stated her own obviously wrong opinion about climate in a presentation to a political group determined to deny climate science. Attributing probably less valid opinions to her does not change her incorrect climate opinion .
You miss the points:

1. Dr. Valentina Zharkova is not a climate scientist.
   Dr. Valentina Zharkova makes obviously ignorant statements about climate science.
2. The dubious, published papers do not have a grand minimum.
   That looks like her personal unsupported opinion.
3. The magnetic field correlations tell us that there will be no significant effect on global warming which climate scientists already know.
   The dubious model shows a decrease in sunspot numbers over the next 2 cycles. That decrease will have no significant effect on global warming.
   Solar physicists (such as Dr. Valentina Zharkova!) know that the complex, chaotic nature of the Sun means that we should not extrapolate long term. But say we do that so that the decrease results in cycles with rare sunspots, i.e. a grand minimum. There will still be no significant effect on global warming.
4. Additionally, an interview where she repeats her opinion about climate does not make the opinion correct.

A grand solar minimum would barely make a dent in human-caused global warming.
The 'imminent mini ice age' myth is back, and it's still wrong

[nota]

I DO NOT ENDORSE THE VIDEO
just found others discussing it and thought it maybe relevant to this thread

but climate science part aside

what do you guys think of her charts of mag effects di or quad pole and the no/low sun spot prediction for cycle 25
and if that will produce extra solar wind and or let in more cosmic rays ?
and what effect that may have on earth

[profloater]

i think the radiation from the sun of particles is at the maximum sunspots, not the minimum. The historical effects are subtle so I would say it is no big deal.

[George]

I DO NOT ENDORSE THE VIDEO
just found others discussing it and thought it maybe relevant to this thread

but climate science part aside

what do you guys think of her charts of mag effects di or quad pole and the no/low sun spot prediction for cycle 25
and if that will produce extra solar wind and or let in more cosmic rays ?
and what effect that may have on earth

As a solar physicist, her work is intriguing. The solar magnetic field greatly affects cosmic ray flux, which affects cloud formation, which will increase the albedo, which reflects more solar radiation, which may cause some cooling during this period. I'm not sure how strong the science is for all of those steps. [Increasing cloud formation doesn't guarantee cooling since it can trap heat.]

She seems to have a legitimate scientific hypothesis based on objective evidence (solar magnetic field data) and some temperature correlations, but limited as Reality Check notes. Interestingly, like any valid hypothesis, it makes predictions but this hypothesis will be tested in the next few years, not decades or centuries. I wouldn't bet money on any real cooling but this solar magnetic field work may add to the numerous terms needed for an ultimate, highly-complex climate model.

[George]

i think the radiation from the sun of particles is at the maximum sunspots, not the minimum.

Yes, but her emphasis, though a bit confusing at times, is that the minimal sunspot period occurs during minimal magnetic field strengths for the Sun, which allows for more cosmic ray flux upon the Earth, thus more cloud cover, hence less radiation absorbed, not less solar radiation emitted, I think she was trying to say.

[Reality Check]

Iwhat do you guys think of her charts of mag effects di or quad pole and the no/low sun spot prediction for cycle 25
and if that will produce extra solar wind and or let in more cosmic rays ?
and what effect that may have on earth

The paper with her co-authors has the official charts and numbers. Prediction of Solar Activity from Solar Background Magnetic Field Variations in Cycles 21-23

The variations of the modulus summary of the two PCs in SBMF reveals a remarkable resemblance to the average number of sunspots in cycles 21-24 and to predictions of reduced sunspot numbers compared to cycle 24: 80% in cycle 25 and 40% in cycle 26.

It is a simplistic analysis of a complex Sun over a short period. It may not be correct.
If correct then it may reduce the solar wind. More importantly, the solar magnetic field is less during low activity and it is that which lets in more cosmic rays. That increase in cosmic rays will have little to no effect on climate or the Earth as a whole.
What's the link between cosmic rays and climate change?

Hypothetically, an increasing solar magnetic field could deflect galactic cosmic rays, which hypothetically seed low-level clouds, thus decreasing the Earth's reflectivity and causing global warming. However, it turns out that none of these hypotheticals are occurring in reality, and if cosmic rays were able to influence global temperatures, they would be having a cooling effect.

[Reality Check]

The solar magnetic field greatly affects cosmic ray flux, which affects cloud formation, which will increase the albedo, which reflects more solar radiation, which may cause some cooling during this period.

George, you need to add a couple of 'hypothetical's.
What's the link between cosmic rays and climate change?
GCRs hypothetically cause aerosol formation. 1 lab experiment supports this.
The GCR aerosols hypothetically grow into cloud-condensation nuclei. Studies show no significant contribution or correlation.
A point listed is "a correlation between GCRs and low-level cloud cover until about 1991" but since then low cloud cover has changed before the flux changed. So we have to conclude that low cloud cover changes the flux of cosmic rays from outside of Earth () or that the correlation is wrong or there is another stronger driver such as CO2 which overwhelms the cosmic ray effects.

If sunspot numbers decrease based on a dubious model then GCRs will increase. If GCRs cause significant aerosol formation and if GCR aerosols grow into cloud-condensation nuclei then we will have more clouds, more albedo and some insignificant cooling up to 2040. After 2040, anything is possible including the reverse (more sunspots leading to GCR warming).

[Robert Tulip]

I heard somewhere that the present warm era was expected to last another 40,000 years even without CO2 increases. I think it was based on orbital oscilations and earth axis orientation? Has anyone else heard about this? I wonder if whoever it was saying that took into account CO2 and the possible disruption (due to polar ice melting) of the "conveyor belt" ocean current keeping the northern hemisphere warmer than it would otherwise be.

Over the last million years, the main periodic structure of global climate has been short interglacials lasting up to 10K followed by 100K cooling trends, with warmer interstadials every 21K or so, in patterns largely modulated by the angle of the perihelion, the obliquity of the ecliptic and the eccentricity of the orbit.

If we imagine a thought experiment where humanity did not evolve agricultural technology in the neolithic, I suspect there is no reason the Holocene interglacial would have lasted more than ten thousand years (10KY), like all previous interglacials. However, agriculture disrupted this process through the emission of greenhouse gasses, mainly methane from rice and cows, reversing the natural cycle and starting the shift toward the current anthropocene with its risk of sudden tipping into a new hothouse earth stability that would be quite hostile to organisms that have evolved in current ecosystems.

Looking at the orbital cycles, without anthropogenic factors we would now be in the middle of a relatively cool period, shifting to a slight warming trend over the next 10KY as northern insolation increases, but this whole model is largely hypothetical given how comprehensively technology has messed with the climate.

[profloater]

that's a good summary from Robert but I would like to add that slight changes in tectonic plates may also be a factor explaining a changing frequency of interglacials because the details of ocean circulations seems to affect the arctic in particular and there is the disturbing effect of major impacts and volcanoes. Before we started burning oil and coal, we were burning forests so this interglacial has seen man made changes which continue to this day of course. While official predictions seem to look at the end of this century for example, we may be seeing trends right now that should swing the argument toward more concerted action. My own view is that we need to spend on adaption too. Solar minima will keep coming around but it will be a shame if it is assumed to be the whole story.

[Roger E. Moore]

Well, this is news to me. Royal Astronomical Society announced something along this line. Have not found update.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0709092955.htm

Solar activity predicted to fall 60% in 2030s, to 'mini ice age' levels: Sun driven by double dynamo
July 9, 2015 - Royal Astronomical Society (RAS)

A new model of the Sun's solar cycle is producing unprecedentedly accurate predictions of irregularities within the Sun's 11-year heartbeat. The model draws on dynamo effects in two layers of the Sun, one close to the surface and one deep within its convection zone. Predictions from the model 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.

[Swift]

Well, this is news to me. Royal Astronomical Society announced something along this line. Have not found update.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0709092955.htm

Solar activity predicted to fall 60% in 2030s, to 'mini ice age' levels: Sun driven by double dynamo
July 9, 2015 - Royal Astronomical Society (RAS)

A new model of the Sun's solar cycle is producing unprecedentedly accurate predictions of irregularities within the Sun's 11-year heartbeat. The model draws on dynamo effects in two layers of the Sun, one close to the surface and one deep within its convection zone. Predictions from the model 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.

Apparently, that is just a restating of Professor Zharkova's ideas. Here is what phys.org said about it:

The 'mini ice age' hoopla is a giant failure of science communication

This month there's been a hoopla about a mini ice age, and unfortunately it tells us more about failures of science communication than the climate. Such failures can maintain the illusion of doubt and uncertainty, even when there's a scientific consensus that the world is warming.

[Roger E. Moore]

I see your point. Did find a few more references in SAO/NASA search engine on the topic, but there is no consensus on the issue at all. A few people advocate it, but it is a minority. I also see predictions vary a great bit from 2030 or so to 2090+, and maybe until 2199. Not convincing.


http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018cosp...42E1867K

Predictions of the onset of mini ice age in the 25th solar cycle

Kumar, Rajiv - 42nd COSPAR Scientific Assembly. Held 14-22 July 2018, in Pasadena, California, USA, Abstract id. A1.1-87-18.
Publication Date: 07/2018

Predictions of the irregularity in the 11 year heartbeat of the Sun due to asynchronous of the two layered dynamo effect would result in mini ice-age as in the Maunder minimum. The onset of this event is expected in the beginning of 25th Solar cycle and would go to its maximum in the 26th Solar cycle . The minimum temperature is expected in 2028 due to the fall of solar activity by 60% termed as Solar Hybernation. The predictions are based on the observations obtained by the Royal Greenwich Observatory since 1874.

===========

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ACP....18.3469A

Implications of potential future grand solar minimum for ozone layer and climate

Arsenovic, Pavle; Rozanov, Eugene; Anet, Julien; Stenke, Andrea; Schmutz, Werner; Peter, Thomas
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Volume 18, Issue 5, 2018, pp.3469-3483 (COPERNICUS Homepage) - 03/2018

Continued anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are expected to cause further global warming throughout the 21st century. Understanding the role of natural forcings and their influence on global warming is thus of great interest. Here we investigate the impact of a recently proposed 21st century grand solar minimum on atmospheric chemistry and climate using the SOCOL3-MPIOM chemistry-climate model with an interactive ocean element. We examine five model simulations for the period 2000-2199, following the greenhouse gas concentration scenario RCP4.5 and a range of different solar forcings. The reference simulation is forced by perpetual repetition of solar cycle 23 until the year 2199. This reference is compared with grand solar minimum simulations, assuming a strong decline in solar activity of 3.5 and 6.5 W m-2, respectively, that last either until 2199 or recover in the 22nd century. Decreased solar activity by 6.5 W m-2 is found to yield up to a doubling of the GHG-induced stratospheric and mesospheric cooling. Under the grand solar minimum scenario, tropospheric temperatures are also projected to decrease compared to the reference. On the global scale a reduced solar forcing compensates for at most 15 % of the expected greenhouse warming at the end of the 21st and around 25 % at the end of the 22nd century. The regional effects are predicted to be significant, in particular in northern high-latitude winter. In the stratosphere, the reduction of around 15 % of incoming ultraviolet radiation leads to a decrease in ozone production by up to 8 %, which overcompensates for the anticipated ozone increase due to reduced stratospheric temperatures and an acceleration of the Brewer-Dobson circulation. This, in turn, leads to a delay in total ozone column recovery from anthropogenic halogen-induced depletion, with a global ozone recovery to the pre-ozone hole values happening only upon completion of the grand solar minimum.

============

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AdSpR..60.1108T

On the timing of the next great solar activity minimum

Tlatov, A. G.; Pevtsov, A. A.
Advances in Space Research, Volume 60, Issue 5, p. 1108-1114. (AdSpR Homepage) - 09/2017

The long-term variations in solar activity are studied using the dataset comprised of sunspot number and 14C radioisotope timeseries. We use a novel S200 index to identify possible past Grand Minima (GM). The Maunder, Oort, Wolf and Spörer Minima fall in phase with the minimum of S200 index. We also show GM develop in clusters, with a separation of about 400-600 years between individual GM. Extending these found similarities to modern solar activity, it is predicted that next grand solar minimum may occur in about ~ 2090 ± 20.

[profloater]

yes indeed, a drop in sunspot numbers is not a drop in sun output, at least not by 60%! Wow we would notice that! A small drop is typical and a different particle output. There have been several cold periods in recorded history and the blame is usually placed on impacts and volcanoes. The sunspot variation is not so significant as the tilt axis, and orbit changes over much longer periods. It seems we notice minimal sunspots as rainfall changes rather than insolation changes. With ever more carbon burning, (rather than the lower numbers we hoped for) and maybe increased methane too, we can expect warming and not cooling.

[Spacedude]

60%! Wow we would notice that!

Yeah, that one might be a Maxi-ice age.

[Grant Hatch]

Yeah, that one might be a Maxi-ice age.

I believe the 60% decrease is referring to Solar "activity" not solar output.

[Ken G]

Total solar irradiance tends to go up when there are sunspots, due to brighter plages around the sunspots, but it's too little to make any difference on climate. Ideas that climate change is due to solar irradiance changes have been ruled out by direct observation of solar irradiance. An idea with more credibility is that solar minimum weakens the solar wind, allowing more energetic particles from deep space to hit Earth's atmosphere. I don't think there is any significant contingent of scientists who think this can explain global warming.

[Grant Hatch]

Here is an interesting data set from Antarctica, Looking at it I would have to conclude that we are in the longest warm period with the least temperature deviation during it... in the last 400k years. It also speculates that we could be heading into another cold spell. They also state that increases in Global temp lag on average 800 years BEHIND increases in atmospheric CO2 ruling it OUT as a cause! Huh...?

"Over the last 400,000 years the natural upper limit of atmospheric CO2 concentrations is assumed from the ice core data to be about 300 ppm. Other studies using proxy such as plant stomata, however, indicate this may closer to the average value, at least over the last 15,000 years. Today, CO2 concentrations worldwide average about 380 ppm. Compared to former geologic periods, concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere are still very small and may not have a statistically measurable effect on global temperatures. For example, during the Ordovician Period 460 million years ago CO2 concentrations were 4400 ppm while temperatures then were about the same as they are today.

Do rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations cause increasing global temperatures, or could it be the other way around? This is one of the questions being debated today. Interestingly, CO2 lags an average of about 800 years behind the temperature changes-- confirming that CO2 is not the cause of the temperature increases. One thing is certain-- earth's climate has been warming and cooling on it's own for at least the last 400,000 years, as the data below show. At year 18,000 and counting in our current interglacial vacation from the Ice Age, we may be due-- some say overdue-- for return to another icehouse climate!"

https://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

https://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

"Causes of Global Climate Change
Climate change is controlled primarily by cyclical eccentricities in Earth's rotation and orbit, as well as variations in the sun's energy output.

"Greenhouse gases" in Earth's atmosphere also influence Earth's temperature, but in a much smaller way. Human additions to total greenhouse gases play a still smaller role, contributing about 0.2% - 0.3% to Earth's greenhouse effect.

Major Causes of Global Temperature Shifts
(1) Astronomical Causes

11 year and 206 year cycles: Cycles of solar variability ( sunspot activity )
21,000 year cycle: Earth's combined tilt and elliptical orbit around the Sun ( precession of the equinoxes )
41,000 year cycle: Cycle of the +/- 1.5° wobble in Earth's orbit ( tilt )
100,000 year cycle: Variations in the shape of Earth's elliptical orbit ( cycle of eccentricity )


(2) Atmospheric Causes

Heat retention: Due to atmospheric gases, mostly gaseous water vapor (not droplets), also carbon dioxide, methane, and a few other miscellaneous gases-- the "greenhouse effect"
Solar reflectivity: Due to white clouds, volcanic dust, polar ice caps


(3) Tectonic Causes

Landmass distribution: Shifting continents (continental drift) causing changes in circulatory patterns of ocean currents. It seems that whenever there is a large land mass at one of the Earth's poles, either the north pole or south pole, there are ice ages.
Undersea ridge activity: "Sea floor spreading" (associated with continental drift) causing variations in ocean displacement."

For more details see:

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovitch.html

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/e...ish_233658.htm

[Reality Check]

Here is an interesting data set from Antarctica, ...

Not very relevant, Grant Hatch, because Antarctica is not the entire world. But mostly because an outdated, ignorant denier web site is not current scientific literature or a reliable source. You are just wasting people's time by citing it blindly. Read what it contains. Tick off the climate skeptic myths that it is full of starting with the "climate has changed before" myth answered by actual science backed up with scientific literature:
What does past climate change tell us about global warming?
etc. etc.
On this page:
The "climate has changed before" myth
Idiocy that US temperatures are global temperatures.
A lie that satellite temperatures do not show global warming like ground stations.
Slight insults of climate scientists being incompetent (using "improper statistical methods, short-term temperature trends, or faulty computer models").
A delusion that climate scientists do not know about and adjust for the urban heating effect.
Idiocy that the Holocene Maximum (before the Industrial Revolution!) means that current global warming is not caused by us.
A delusion that a "0.28%" contribution to greenhouse gasses = a 0.28% contribution to global warming.

Come to the conclusion that is yet another denier we site, outdated and not worth citing.

[Swift]

<snip>
Do rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations cause increasing global temperatures, or could it be the other way around?

An entire page of information why the current temperature rise is being driven by rising CO2 concentrations, and not the other way around.

Another page about the temperature lag

This statement does not tell the whole story. The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. Additional positive feedbacks which play an important role in this process include other greenhouse gases, and changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns.

A 2012 study by Shakun et al. looked at temperature changes 20,000 years ago (the last glacial-interglacial transition) from around the world and added more detail to our understanding of the CO2-temperature change relationship. They found that:

- The Earth's orbital cycles triggered warming in the Arctic approximately 19,000 years ago, causing large amounts of ice to melt, flooding the oceans with fresh water.
- This influx of fresh water then disrupted ocean current circulation, in turn causing a seesawing of heat between the hemispheres.
- The Southern Hemisphere and its oceans warmed first, starting about 18,000 years ago. As the Southern Ocean warms, the solubility of CO2 in water falls. This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, releasing it into the atmosphere.
- While the orbital cycles triggered the initial warming, overall, more than 90% of the glacial-interglacial warming occured after that atmospheric CO2 increase (Figure 2).

[Ken G]

The effect being described is called "forcing," which means that changes tend to get enhanced by the changes they in turn cause. Global warming is apparently enhanced by significant forcing effects, without which we could increase carbon dioxide levels without as much consequence. To see an example of what happens when forcing gets so strong that it produces a "runaway" effect, consider Venus, which is the grandmother of all global warming scenarios. Apparently the Earth does not have it that bad, because we have not turned into Venus, but we still suffer from forcing effects. The irony is, when people say that human-caused global warming is not a problem because rising temperatures lead to increasing carbon dioxide levels, they are missing that when rising temperatures lead to carbon dioxide increases, this makes human causes much worse-- it produces feedback when we release carbon dioxide, which we do! Their argument is essentially that the reason we are capable of changing our climate should be regarded as the reason we cannot change our climate.

[publiusr]

The only thing that worries me--cooling wise--was this seismic event
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/s...earth-geology/

I wonder if it is an injection of magma. A submarine eruption would release gases--but not much of anything in the way of ash...

[Copernicus]

“When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarely, in your thoughts advanced to the stage of science.”

― Lord Kelvin

These people are talking about the temperature going down soon. Barring a major volcanic eruption this is unlikely, supposedly. What temperature drop in 2019, calendar year, without some enormous volcano going off, would it take to give credence to whoever's theory you are talking about. If the average global temperature goes down by one degree fahrenheit, for the whole year of 2019, would that be enough to be convincing. I heard the argument is that the earth's atmosphere will shrink or increase in density and cause more heat to escape due to better heat transfer or some other mechanism, I don't know.
I do believe in global warming. I really believe the temperature will go up by 2-3 degree's centigrade by the end of the century. But there are other mechanisms that we don't understand yet. Many mechanisms. So if there is anything to the sun cycles and temperature it should be evident very soon.
Somebody is putting forth a hypothesis, measurement should be pretty easy to do in 2019 to confirm the theory or not.

[Robert Tulip]

The effect being described is called "forcing," which means that changes tend to get enhanced by the changes they in turn cause. Global warming is apparently enhanced by significant forcing effects, without which we could increase carbon dioxide levels without as much consequence. To see an example of what happens when forcing gets so strong that it produces a "runaway" effect, consider Venus, which is the grandmother of all global warming scenarios. Apparently the Earth does not have it that bad, because we have not turned into Venus, but we still suffer from forcing effects. The irony is, when people say that human-caused global warming is not a problem because rising temperatures lead to increasing carbon dioxide levels, they are missing that when rising temperatures lead to carbon dioxide increases, this makes human causes much worse-- it produces feedback when we release carbon dioxide, which we do! Their argument is essentially that the reason we are capable of changing our climate should be regarded as the reason we cannot change our climate.

A main warming forcing is the feedback amplifier of albedo. When we melt the Arctic sea ice, the ocean changes from white to near black, from reflector to absorber of light and heat. The planetary ocean currents moving through the Arctic make it a particularly crucial and sensitive feedback amplifier, so Arctic warming driven by anthropogenic greenhouse gases, together with other forcings, vastly overwhelm any alleged cooling effects of changes in solar output.

[Swift]

“When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarely, in your thoughts advanced to the stage of science.”

― Lord Kelvin

These people are talking about the temperature going down soon. Barring a major volcanic eruption this is unlikely, supposedly. What temperature drop in 2019, calendar year, without some enormous volcano going off, would it take to give credence to whoever's theory you are talking about. If the average global temperature goes down by one degree fahrenheit, for the whole year of 2019, would that be enough to be convincing. I heard the argument is that the earth's atmosphere will shrink or increase in density and cause more heat to escape due to better heat transfer or some other mechanism, I don't know.
I do believe in global warming. I really believe the temperature will go up by 2-3 degree's centigrade by the end of the century. But there are other mechanisms that we don't understand yet. Many mechanisms. So if there is anything to the sun cycles and temperature it should be evident very soon.
Somebody is putting forth a hypothesis, measurement should be pretty easy to do in 2019 to confirm the theory or not.

Short of some obvious, major event, like a massive volcanic eruption or a major change in solar output, which we could not hep but notice, there is no way we are going to have a year-to-year change of 1 degree. And a drop in year-to-year average global temperature of some tiny fraction of a degree as we often see is not going to disprove global warming. Those relatively small changes are most often from small, medium-term cycles, like El Nino/La Nino, or other small protuberances.

Global warming is not demonstrated or disproved by a single year. We don't need a single year's measurement to confirm it, we have decades of measurements.

And statements like "there are other mechanisms we don't understand yet" is the kind of statement deniers make. Sure, there exist such mechanisms, but they are minor components of the system. The major, long term changes are well explained by current theory. We are not going to find some magical hidden relationship that is going to suddenly explain away global warming.

If someone thinks they have such a theory, then it is incumbent upon them to demonstrate it. It isn't up to the rest of science to demonstrate their crazy idea doesn't work.

[Swift]

<snip>
These people are talking about the temperature going down soon. Barring a major volcanic eruption this is unlikely, supposedly. What temperature drop in 2019, calendar year, without some enormous volcano going off, would it take to give credence to whoever's theory you are talking about.

So, how much does a major volcanic eruption cool the Earth and how long does it last.

One paper from 1996 (The Impact of Mount Pinatubo on World-Wide Temperatures)

Abstract:

We monitor and model the effects on world-wide temperatures of the June 1991 volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines. Global mean air temperatures were reduced, by up to 0.5°C at the surface and 0.6°C in the troposphere, for some months in mid-1992, in approximate accord with model predictions. Differences from these predictions occurred in the Northern Hemisphere winters of 1991-1992 and 1992-1993, as a result of atmospheric circulation changes that yielded continental surface warmings not fully reproduced by the model. The effects of the eruption were less evident by 1994. A superposed-epoch composite for five major tropical eruptions shows significant global post-eruption cooling at the surface when the effects of the El Ni7o-Southern Oscillation are removed from the data. Stratospheric warmth following Pinatubo lasted until early 1993 according to Microwave Sounding Unit data.

[profloater]

by chance a scientist involved was interviewed this morning, BBC radio4 "the life scientific" and he explained how much better models are today and go back over the Pinatubo evidence to help validate the models.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0001hvs
Clive Oppenheimer

[Copernicus]

Hi Swift,

I do believe in global warming! I'm just asking if one degree Fahrenheit would be enough to make people question the effects of the solar cycle? Your answer tells me it would be more than enough.