If the lack of sunspots and the MINOR LOCAL forcings of UNKNOWN origins that has produced a cool summer in the US,"What is the mechanism which explains how the existence of sunspots affects 2% of the earth. You are sceptical about the effect of CO2 (a theory which is supported by sound physics) yet happily accept some solar mumbo jumbo because it supports your particular viewpoint."
Whatever mechanism there is affects all of the earth - I'm just
interested in a specific 2%. What is it? Don't know. Don't care
except for idle curiosity. If in 1805 Sir Hershel thought he
could predict the price of wheat based on sunspots, then it's
not a leap for me to predict a colder winter. When you keep
getting the same results after observing an event over and
over again, do you really need to be able to explain the
mechanism to make use of the observation?
"The peak of solar activity was nearly 20 years ago. We are in a deep solar minimum now. The reason there was a temperature dip in 2008 was due to the 2007/08 La Nina, the effects of which continued into 2009. We may get an El Nino but that's beside the point. The underlying heat is still there - even with neutral ENSO conditions global temperatures are above the late 20th century average."
I suspect there were El Ninos, La Ninas and various ENSO
conditions since before man. I wish we had records that would
indicate what impact they had during prolonged solar minimum.
The strong correlation between such minima and a colder
climate suggests they had no more than a modest impact or
else the correlation would have been destroyed. And the trend
for global temps has been up since the end of the LIA. Not rare
for earth and I'm sure there are many theories other than GHG
on the table, and future theorists will posit still more. We don't
know what we don't know.
Same thing with the relationship between cool summers and
the following winter, and the lack of Atlantic storms and cool
winters. How many times does nature have to hit us over the
head before we understand there's a mechanism at work that
we neither recognize nor understand? Man's survival has
depended upon his understanding that if 'x' happens 'y' will
follow, even if he didn't have a clue why. People use to try to
explain the 'mechanism' by invoking Gods, evil spirits, magic,
and the sort. Now they try to explain it using their very limited
understanding of the universe.
"There clearly isn't a significant solar effect - or not one that operates on the timescales that are relevant to the time period of the GHG increases at least. Any solar/temperature correlation, which was based on oudated solar reconstructions anyway, broke down several decades ago."
If you're right, then we won't have a colder winter. If I am right
we will. That's exactly why I am looking forward to this winter.
We need more evidence before either one of us is going to
change our position. If we don't have a colder winter than the
thirty year average, I will concede that GHG is likely moderating
the climate, and is at least as significant as other climate
drivers. If the winter is colder than average are you willing to
admit there is more to the climate we still don't understand,
and GHG may not be playing that significant of a role, or will you
cop out and claim it's just another coincidence like all of the
other similar 'coincidences' in the past?
Change that to both unknown drivers and forcings. In other words, we don't have a clue why the climate behaves the way it does, but if we have a PREDICTABLY cold winter based on other observed anomalies, then clearly that is proof that there are stronger influences on the climate than CO2.
"As usual, you (and others) fail to understand how the global climate will respond to increasing levels of CO2. Of course there are stronger influences - over the short-term at least - than CO2. I don't think doubling CO2 will produce more than ~1.5 deg C warming which implies an average warming trend of ~0.1 deg per decade for the rest of this century. Some decades it will be higher and some decades lower. There may be some decades when we don't see any increase because of, say, ENSO fluctuations and the ~0.1 deg drop from solar max to solar min. The underlying trend is still there, though. Global temperatures during the recent La Nina were still higher than during previous La Nina events. In some cases they were higher than during previous El Nino events. A strong and reasonably prolonged El Nino will probably see the warmest year on record. How can this be possible when so many solar pundits are telling us we're about to enter the next Dalton/Maunder minimum."
You're right. I don't fully understand the impact CO2 plays in
determining the climate. Never claimed I did. But I'm pretty
certain nobody else does either. Finally, you are arguing facts
not in evidence. You don't know that "a strong and reasonably
prolonged El Nino will probably see the warmest year on
record," in the face of a prolonged solar minimum. You seem so
convinced that it will happen that you are arguing it as a fact.
Again, this is precisely why I want to see such a strong El Nino
this year. If we have a cold winter in the face of a strong El
Nino, then the GHG theories are significantly wrong. RIGHT?
"The points I'm making now are exactly the same points I was making more than 12 months ago. There is no global cooling.
And there has been no warming for the past decade. You don't
need to be keep making the same points over and over again;
we understand your views. You presumably understand ours.
We're at an impasse until we have more evidence. And that is
the point I'm making.