Often when I talk about climate cycles, it turns into I'm a climate change denier. I am not, I have been writing about climate change since the 90's. It's just not that this year, or next, are indicative of imminent disaster.
Within the next few hundred years the seas will rise around 100m. Nothing will stop that, nothing will save most island countries or coastal cities. We don't have the long term political will to stop that.
The current short term (5 year) climate thinking is that conditions (land + ocean temps, storms, etc) will worsen for "a few years" and then lighten up a little with a slight reduction and general plateau for a few more years.
The ratcheting upward saw toothing is a feature of the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) pattern .. and the world is just now moving into the upturn phase.
Climate dynamics are akin to the tennis racket theorem - the uninterferred long term arc of the centre of gravity (gross parameters) is essentially deterministic, however the short term specific orientations of the tumblings along that arc resist exact prediction.
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.
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.
I'm sticking to the expected behaviour from climate scientists; sunspots and Aztec cycles aren't my department (see my peer comment on solar magnetic activity & climate quoting NASA scientists on their opinions re: .. )
