Holy Cow! Charles Osgood, a skeptic?
A QUIET SUN DOESN’T HAPPEN OVERNIGHT.
excerpts:
I know you’ve already got a lot to worry about as it is, but something rather odd is going on — on the Sun.
The Sun normally undergoes an 11-year cycle of activity — and last year, it was supposed to have heated up — and, at its peak, would have a tumultuous boiling atmosphere, spitting out flares and huge chunks of super-hot gas.
Instead, it hit a 50-year low in solar wind pressure, a 55-year low in radio emissions, and a 100-year low in sunspot activity. Right now, the sun is the dimmest it’s been in nearly a century.
Did you know that? It’s true. Astronomers are baffled by it, but has the press covered the story? Hardly at all. Is the government doing anything about it? No, it’s not even in the Obama budget or any Congressional earmarks.
Right now, global warming is a given to so many, it raises the question: Could another minimum activity period on the Sun counteract, in any way, the effects of global warming?
read the entire article at the link below:
Transcripts, podcasts, and Mp3’s of all this program can be found at theosgoodfile.com.
Re: Smokey (16:44:58)
You make some interesting comments Smokey. I will share a few observations:
1.
There are time series that show a much higher correlation with CO2 than mean temperature time series.
2.
Anyone inspired by (1) to go correlation-hunting might start by:
a) reading Jose (1965) more carefully than most who cite his work.
b) studying Sidorenkov (2005) & related works.
I’m not making any suggestions about causation, nor am I agreeing with all of your comments.
Paul Vaughn,
Just FYI, re point #1: click
Also, I am not correlation hunting by posting these charts. I am simply being skeptical of the CO2=AGW hypothesis, and I have not been persuaded by the main ‘evidence’ that CO2 causes or will cause significant warming, because that putative evidence consists mainly of GCMs. Solid empirical evidence supporting the CO2=AGW hypothesis does not exist.
The real world evidence, on the other hand, shows temps flat to declining, while CO2 is steadily rising. Rational people accept that as a strong argument against the CO2=AGW claims.
The AGW folks need to come up with more credible arguments, or admit that the planet itself is falsifying their belief system.
Anthony, just saw this one on Wired…
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/04/2012storms.html
Here is an interesting chart, which shows the wide variation in annual human CO2 emissions, compared with the steady, extremely regular rise in Mauna Loa CO2 readings: click
It is obvious that human emissions are such a small part of the total that they do not even show up in the Mauna Loa record. If human emitted CO2 were stopped completely, the Mauna Loa record would look the same.
I don’t know where John Daly got that chart and what it means.
The charts that I have seen show that annual human emissions are on average twice the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 measured at MLO. See the chart which shows this on Roy Spencer’s web site.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/increasing-atmospheric-co2-manmade%E2%80%A6or-natural/
The previous post was addressed to Smokey (16:44:58) : .
Thank you for the link, eric. I’ll have to read it later, since I’m on my way out at the moment [it’s Saturday night, you know]. But I respect Spencer’s work, and I always defer to his expertise.
I did notice his comment:
Which agrees with what I pointed out above: only a very small part of the observed increase in CO2 is from human emissions [<2 ppm]. Therefore, almost all of the warming is natural, and CO2 follows the warming [although for the last 7 – 8 years, the planet has been cooling, thus driving another nail in the CO2=AGW coffin]. So the alarming Mauna Loa CO2 chart is merely a consequence of natural variability. And it is only alarming because of the Fun House mirror distortion effect caused by beginning the y-axis at 310 ppm, rather than at zero.
And regarding the late John Daly, his site is excellent, and it has withstood many impotent attacks by warmists before. So I accept his charts, unless they can be falsified. Saying you don’t know where he got his chart, or what it means, falls far short of falsifying it. I would recommend accepting it at face value, and dealing with the consequences.
And I stand by my statement that if human emitted CO2 were stopped completely, it would not even show up in the Keeling chart. Falsify that, if you can. The fact is that human emitted CO2 does not currently appear in the Keeling chart, because it is so far down in the noise. Therefore, eliminating human emitted CO2 would not show up in the Keeling chart, either.
“There are layers of misunderstanding (or worse: intentional distortion) in these comments/interpretations.”
Well go on then – explain what they are.
“Either RW is right, and everyone else in this thread is wrong; or vice versa. A reasonable person would conclude that the *ahem* consensus is right in this case”
Ho ho, that’s a good one! You seem to have fundamentally misunderstood how science understanding proceeds and develops. It is not by majority vote.
“Here is an interesting chart, which shows the wide variation in annual human CO2 emissions, compared with the steady, extremely regular rise in Mauna Loa CO2 readings: click”
The chart doesn’t show that. It shows that the annual increase in CO2 in the atmosphere varies widely. Read the caption.
“It is obvious that human emissions are such a small part of the total that they do not even show up in the Mauna Loa record. If human emitted CO2 were stopped completely, the Mauna Loa record would look the same.”
Human emissions are more than enough to raise CO2 concentrations by 110ppm. Isotopic studies show that the extra CO2 has come from fossil fuels.
“I have not been persuaded by the main ‘evidence’ that CO2 causes or will cause significant warming, because that putative evidence consists mainly of GCMs”
It does not. The evidence that you need is one thing, and one thing only: a small amount of CO2 absorbs a lot of infrared radiation. That’s been known for 150 years, and it means that it is impossible for CO2 not to cause warming.
“Therefore, almost all of the warming is natural, and CO2 follows the warming”
When CO2 and temperatures are in equilibrium, CO2 concentrations increase by ~8ppm/°C (see ice core records). CO2 concentrations today are ~110ppm higher than they were in 1200AD, and therefore, if you theory is correct it must now be 13°C hotter than it was then.
“And I stand by my statement that if human emitted CO2 were stopped completely, it would not even show up in the Keeling chart. Falsify that, if you can.”
Falsified.
RW (05:22:18)
“Well go on then – explain what they are.”
I’m not interested in getting dragged onto fruitless tangents (but others appear clearly willing, so perhaps some of them will continue discussing this with you…)
Thank you for your interest in this discussion.
Not falsified. There is only a temporary, relatively short term correlation beginning about 1975. But thanx for playing, and Vanna has some wonderful parting gifts for you on your way out.
And like Paul V, I’ve lost interest in discussing this with someone hopelessly afflicted with cognitive dissonance; someone who is out of step with every other comment. That’s what CD does to its victims:
That’s RW to a T.
Paul Vaughan: if you won’t make the case that your bald statement was constructive, then it’s clear that you don’t have a case.
Smokey: looks like you need to check that graph again. It shows that atmospheric CO2 has been rising roughly in proportion to human emissions since about 1800. It’s a rather simple relation: more CO2 going into the atmosphere = more CO2 in the atmosphere. I’m not really sure why you would think that the emission of 25 billion tonnes or more of CO2 each year wouldn’t turn up in the atmosphere. Can you explain?
“Can you explain?”
Of course I can explain. I do it all the time, to try and help out folks like you. I could very easily explain why your graph has the x-axis and y-axis set up with those particular ranges to show a temporary correlation. I have provided charts and peer reviewed papers showing conclusively that rises in CO2 follow rises in temperature.
But you don’t listen to anybody’s explanations. Your mind is closed, so you just argue incessantly. When someone asks you a good question, do you answer it? No. You just MoveOn to another incessant CD-inspired argument, moving the goal posts as you go.
The fact that you constantly argue with everyone else means either that you are incapable of understanding the basics discussed here… or that your mind is already made up and closed tight; therefore you will incessantly argue with anyone who is skeptical of the repeatedly falsified CO2 = AGW hypothesis.
Look at the Cognitive Dissonance example that was posted @12:18:51 again. That’s you exactly. [Thank you for looking.] The world didn’t end as expected, so rather than admit the hypothesis was wrong, you simply move the goal posts again. You’re a victim of CD. Global temps are going down while CO2 is going up. Those are facts. I posted almost twenty charts upthread from different governments and universities, all showing the same thing: every one of them show declining temps and increasing CO2. But your mind is shut tight, and you will not listen.
That being the case, I’m not going to explain things to you yet again. You never listen to anyone here. We have deconstructed every argument you’ve made, and it would be just as easy to deconstruct your latest wonderings.
When you start seriously listening to what people here are explaining to you, then you will either have to admit this is all way over your head… or you will have to admit that you too have become skeptical of the false claim that CO2 is gonna getcha.
You’re arguing with everybody, RW. That should tell you something. So like Vaughn, I’m out of this thread. But feel free to continue arguing with yourself.
“Of course I can explain”, you say…
You haven’t explained where the CO2 from fossil fuel burning is going. Where did 25 billion tonnes of CO2 disappear to last year, and the year before, and the year before that?
You haven’t explained why CO2 concentrations began rising just when humans began burning fossil fuels in large quantities, and have now risen 40% above a level they hadn’t exceeded in at least the last 800,000 years.
You haven’t explained why the 13C content of atmospheric CO2 began dropping just when humans started burning fossil fuels in large quantities, and is lower now than it has ever been in the last 800,000 years.
You haven’t explained, and you can’t explain, how a strong infrared absorber can fail to have an influence on temperatures.
“I have provided charts and peer reviewed papers showing conclusively that rises in CO2 follow rises in temperature.”
If your claims on that score were valid, then it would now be 13°C warmer than it was 800 years ago, as I explained above. It is not. Your claims are not valid.
“Global temps are going down”
Do you think that every year should be warmer than the previous year? There’s a word for the concept that the behaviour of the atmosphere is highly variable – the word is ‘weather’.
You still don’t get that climate cannot be measured over 10 years. You still don’t get that science does not proceed by democracy, or that this site presents fringe opinions and not mainstream science. You are arguing that virtually every scientist working in a wide range of disciplines is wrong, and you, Smokey, random anonymous blog commentator, know better. You don’t.
You should stop arguing things that have been known and understood for decades. You could ask some valid and challenging questions about our understanding of the way the atmosphere responds to changing inputs. But you’re not doing so.
Smokey,
And I stand by my statement that if human emitted CO2 were stopped completely, it would not even show up in the Keeling chart. Falsify that, if you can. The fact is that human emitted CO2 does not currently appear in the Keeling chart, because it is so far down in the noise. Therefore, eliminating human emitted CO2 would not show up in the Keeling chart, either.
It is falsified by the chart in my link on Spencer’s web site. Human emissions are twice as large as the annual increase in CO2 shown on the MLO chart. Yo can’t really believe that human increases are in the noise if they are twice as large as the MLO concentration increases. All you have to do is look at the chart and it is obvious.
It is true that the fluctuations in the annual increases, when the steady human emissions trend is subtracted, shows that the variations in the increase are due to natural causes. It seems that you are confusing the variations in the annual increase after the data has been detrended with the driving force for the steady part of the increase.
The variations from industrial co2 should be visible in the mauna loa graph but they’re not. smokey proved his point.
Linda P. (17:46:33) :
The variations from industrial co2 should be visible in the mauna loa graph but they’re not. smokey proved his point.,
Sorry but your post doesn’t make sense. Economic activity from year to year, which drives the CO2 emissions changes in the low single percents.
There is no reason to believe that variations in the net natural absorption of CO2 from the atmosphere, which is the difference between large fluxes, into and out of the atmosphere, wouldn’t dominate the variation in annual CO2 increase as it does.
The annual human emissions are twice as large as the annual natural absorption and are responsible for the annual increases absorbed at MLO over time. The natural absorption is responsible for the variation in the annual increases.
RW (13:48:42) :
“Paul Vaughan: if you won’t make the case that your bald statement was constructive, then it’s clear that you don’t have a case.”
You said:
RW (14:22:25)
“[…] The longer period giving the slightly better correlation shows that the PDO has nothing to do with the correlation.”
This is a serious misinterpretation. I called you on it.
Suggestion: Use appropriate qualifiers in statements (so that you won’t run as much risk of getting called for being technically wrong).
Comment: I appreciate the contribution you have made to this discussion.
RW,
In checking back on this thread, I see that you’re still at it two days later. OK then, here’s something to think about.
You asked: “You haven’t explained where the CO2 from fossil fuel burning is going. Where did 25 billion tonnes of CO2 disappear to last year, and the year before, and the year before that?”
OK, I’ll explain it to you. The answer is that as CO2 [plant food] increases, the biosphere makes good use of it. Prof. Freeman Dyson explains the mechanism very well: click. It’s like putting a culture into agar. The microbes multiply fast, to take advantage of the big food supply. Same with CO2. When plenty of plant fertilizer is available, the organisms that use it rapidly multiply. That’s where where the CO2 from fossil fuel burning is going.
Next: “You could ask some valid and challenging questions about our understanding of the way the atmosphere responds to changing inputs. But you’re not doing so.”
The atmosphere is not responding to changing inputs, as you assume — the biosphere is. The fact that human CO2 emissions are a *very* small part of the total annual CO2 emission by the planet is a very good reason to just relax an enjoy life.
A change in a very minor trace gas is not causing any problems at all. It isn’t making the polar ice caps melt. And there is no empirical evidence that this minor addition to a minor trace gas has any effect at all on temperature. But there is very strong empirical [real world] evidence that an increase in CO2 is very beneficial. Plant life benefits from more CO2. That is a proven fact.
So relax. Don’t be a worry wart. CO2 isn’t gonna getcha. More CO2 is better in our carbon dioxide starved environment. That’s a fact.
Re: Smokey (03:51:53)
The intensity with which you (seemingly) badger could turn people away from your argument.
You leave me wondering if that is your intent.
Paul Vaughn,
I apologize if I upset you. I was responding specifically to another poster’s comments, and I provided several links to support my position. I answered his questions and told him to relax, and don’t worry. Is that what bothered you? Or is it something else? Really, I want to know the specifics.
Based on your comment, I have re-read this entire thread from the beginning. I think you should, too. Comments like…
…are not uncommon on this site.
I’m standing my ground on my skeptical position, and if I come across as being impatient with the escapees from echo chambers like RealClimate and similar sites, who come here solely to argue and disrupt, and tell you and everyone else they’re wrong, I think a few of them need to hear it. I always provide a stream of citations and links to support my views, while posters like the one quoted above just hit ‘n’ run. Don’t you think they are more worthy of criticism than my comments?
Notice that I’ve posted well over twenty charts and graphs supporting my position — and every last one of them was simply dismissed out of hand, with a pf-f-ft attitude. Do you think that every chart and graph mis-states reality, and should be disregarded? If even one chart or graph I posted represents reality, then the alarmists’ position takes a major hit.
My advice is don’t worry about the feelings of the very few closed-minded posters who come here from the other side to tell everyone else they’re wrong, or to run interference. I’m only concerned if I’ve hurt your feelings, or those of the 95% of reasonable folks who comment and answer questions if asked.
I’ve stated several times on this site that I will change my mind if someone provides reasonably convincing evidence that the current situation is not explained by natural climate variability. No one has ever risen to that challenge. I’m not the only one who gets irked at the absolute refusal of the warmists to ever admit that any of us has made a convincing argument. You will routinely read a comment from someone who believed in the CO2 = AGW hypothesis, and then became a skeptic because of what they read here and elsewhere. But show me one poster who used to be skeptical that CO2 would cause runaway global warming, but now believes it’s true.
It is the utter closed-mindedness of the other side that causes frustration, and I’m not the only one who hits back. That being the case, there must be something I said that bothered you, and for that I apologize.
Re: Smokey (14:41:58)
Clarification:
My interest in participating in this particular thread:
Solar science and the reasons for its slow progress.
Paul Vaughan:
“Comment: I appreciate the contribution you have made to this discussion.”
I appreciate you saying so. But I still don’t understand what you’re objecting to regarding the CO2/temperature correlation. It was argued that the strong correlation since 1975 was spurious, caused or at least enhanced by the pacific decadal oscillation. In fact, when extended to a period where the PDO was negative, the correlation does not weaken; it becomes stronger. Therefore, the 1975-present correlation between CO2 and temperature was not spurious.
Smokey:
It’s amusing to see you claiming that all the fossil fuel CO2 somehow disappears into the biosphere, and not into the atmosphere, and yet in the very same post, you show us a graph showing the ongoing rise in atmospheric CO2.
“there is no empirical evidence that this minor addition to a minor trace gas has any effect at all on temperature”
So your next tactic is to concede that fossil fuel CO2 goes into the atmosphere, but to claim that the extra quantity is insignificant. In fact, its concentration has increased by 40%.
And of course there is empirical evidence that it affects temperatures. It’s bizarre to deny it. You might disagree with the conclusions drawn from the evidence, but it’s obvious that there is evidence. Fact 1: CO2 absorbs strongly in the infrared. Strong infrared absorbers give rise to the greenhouse effect. Fact 2: the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is rising. Fact 3: over the period of instrumental temperature measurements, the global average temperature has risen by about 1°C. How exactly is that not evidence?
“carbon dioxide starved environment”
You ever hear of a guy called Darwin? A concept called ‘evolution’? I’d love to know how life on earth has somehow evolved to fit an ecological niche that hasn’t existed for at least a million years.
Your problem, Smokey, is that you are refusing to understand some basic things. Like I say, there are valid and interesting questions that can be asked, but you’re not asking them; instead, you’re denying basic science that was done 150 years ago and has been endlessly verified since then.
RW is now claiming to quote me on things that I never said. Smart guy that he is, I’ll let him figure out what they are.
I provide numerous links and citations to back up what I say, while RW just issues his opinions.
RW opines that I do not understand. As I’ve pointed out many times, my 30+ year career was spent working in one of the country’s largest metrology labs, designing, calibrating, testing and repairing weather related equipment; primarily humidity, dew/frost point, temperature and thermocouple instruments.
Calibrations were directly traceable to the National Bureau of Standards [now N.I.S.T.]. We received all the current scientific literature, sent to the lab gratis by the equipment manufacturers. I personally subscribed to the AAAS journal Science for more than twenty years.
In our lab, with over 140 engineers and technicians, no one — not a single one — bought into the CO2 = AGW scam. Whenever the subject came up, people would just roll their eyes or crack jokes about it. These are professionals who, unlike the general public, are well grounded in the physical sciences. Not a single engineer or tech saw the “carbon” scare as legitimate science. It was a fad motivated and perpetuated by money, not by real science. But RW probably thinks all those professionals are wrong, and that the science is settled.
So now I am curious about RW’s CV. Is RW a climatologist? Is RW a meteorologist? Has RW spent his career working in a weather or climate related field? Has RW ever convinced even one skeptic to change his mind here, and accept that an increase in CO2 will cause runaway global warming? Or did RW see An Inconvenient Truth, and become a true believer as a result?
RW claims that “…of course there is empirical evidence that [CO2] affects temperatures.” That is a baseless opinion. RW should provide empirical [real world, verifiable] evidence that purports to measure the exact portion of global temperature increase caused by the very small fraction of anthropogenic CO2 that is added to the atmosphere. Explain why the slow, steady rise in Mauna Loa CO2 measurements fail to correlate at all with the rise and fall of human CO2 emissions. Explain why as CO2 rises, global temperatures have been falling for many years. Leaving the always inaccurate computer models out of any putative explanation results in the failure of the CO2 = AGW conjecture. GCMs are very flimsy “evidence.”
Finally, RW’s false claim that there is a “very strong correlation” between rising CO2 and global temperatures has been repeatedly falsified by the planet itself.
Notice the almost complete lack of any R^2 correlation under the graph. The fact is that there is no causal connection between rising CO2 and the subsequent rise on global temperature — as there clearly is between rising temperature and the subsequent rise of CO2: as CO2 rises, temperature falls. The ridiculous Elmer Gantry-style answer by the alarmist contingent is that global warming causes global cooling. Could they be any less credible?
Well if you want to ignore what I wrote, I’ll just repeat it:
“Fact 1: CO2 absorbs strongly in the infrared. Strong infrared absorbers give rise to the greenhouse effect. Fact 2: the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is rising. Fact 3: over the period of instrumental temperature measurements, the global average temperature has risen by about 1°C.”
You still don’t understand that you can’t measure climate over a decade. It’s a simple point, and one that you clearly fail to understand not because you can’t but because you don’t want to. This shows the whole GISS record, and the whole Mauna Loa CO2 record. Only a fool would deny the clear appearance of a correlation during the common period of the two records. But if you look at any 10 year period within that (for example 1968-1978, or 1985-1995>, you don’t see a correlation. This is because internal variability dominates over short timescales. You cannot say anything meaningful about climate based on only 10 years of data.
You still don’t understand that this graph does not show what you are claiming it does. It shows that the annual increase in CO2 is not in fact smooth and steady; it shows the exact opposite of what you have twice claimed that it shows. Read the caption!
The fundamental facts are:
– that CO2 is a strong infrared absorber; strong infrared absorbers play a fundamental role in the climate, giving rise to the greenhouse effect;
– the concentration of CO2 is rising, at an ever-increasing rate, and is 40% above pre-industrial levels
– the rise is due to the burning of fossil fuels.
These things are known beyond any doubt. By continually questioning them, and particularly by taking approaches like posting 10 graphs, every single one of which shows data over too short a period to be meaningful, you destroy any credibility you ever had. Like I’ve said, there are interesting questions to ask about the climate. You’re wasting your time trying to attack undeniable fundamentals in the style of Monty Python’s knights attacking castles with swords.
Smokey, clearly you are not able to grasp this really simple stuff. And it’s amusing that you accuse me of ‘mental disorder’, when you’re the one who can’t even understand science from 150 years ago. Also interesting that the moderators allow such disgusting insults to be posted. Are they trying to encourage an atmosphere of hostility towards anyone who doesn’t agree with them?
It is proven that the rise in CO2 is not due to any previous warming. As I said before, you would need a warming of 15°C to explain the rise. Do you believe it’s got that much warmer? It seems from your comments that you don’t, so you are contradicting yourself. Doing that, and being unaware of it, by the way, can be a sign of mental disorder.
Isotopic studies prove that the extra CO2 has come from fossil fuel. I’ve told you this repeatedly, and rather than offer any counterevidence, you just state your beliefs yet again.
And still you can’t get that climate is not measured over ten years! This is the fundamental fact that renders all of your graphs and comments relating to temperatures since 2002 completely irrelevant! But you keep on referring to them, and you seem to think that the more you can dig up, the better. It’s easy to find wrong things on the internet, and no matter how many you find, they are still wrong.
You are simply ignoring any evidence that contradicts your belief. For you, it seems, this is something of a religion, or perhaps a cult.
…the rest of the story. Climate is changing and always will. The climate celebrities, however, are linking climate and the economy. Yes, there has been warming to end the Pleistocene. Climate is a multiple input, multiple loop, multiple output, complex system. The facts and the hypotheses, however, do not support CO2 as a serious ‘pollutant’. In fact, it is plant fertilizer and seriously important to all life on the planet. It is the red herring used to unwind our economy. That issue makes the science relevant.
Sulphate from volcanoes can have a catastrophic effect, but water vapour is far more important. Water vapour (0.4% overall by volume in air, but 1 – 4 % near the surface) is the most effective green house blanket followed by methane (0.0001745%). The third ranking gas is CO2 (0.0383%), and it does not correlate well with global warming or cooling either; in fact, CO2 in the atmosphere trails warming which is clear natural evidence for its well-studied inverse solubility in water: CO2 dissolves rapidly in cold water and bubbles rapidly out of warm water. The equilibrium in seawater is very high; making seawater a great ‘sink’; CO2 is 34 times more soluble in water than air is soluble in water.
CO2 has been rising and Earth and her oceans have been warming. However, the correlation trails. Correlation, moreover, is not causation. The causation is under experimental review, however, and while the radiation from the sun varies only in the fourth decimal place, the magnetism is awesome.
“Using a box of air in a Copenhagen lab, physicists traced the growth of clusters of molecules of the kind that build cloud condensation nuclei. These are specks of sulphuric acid on which cloud droplets form. High-energy particles driven through the laboratory ceiling by exploded stars far away in the Galaxy – the cosmic rays – liberate electrons in the air, which help the molecular clusters to form much faster than climate scientists have modeled in the atmosphere. That may explain the link between cosmic rays, cloudiness and climate change.”
As I understand it, the hypothesis of the Danish National Space Center goes as follows:
Quiet sun induces a reduced magnetic allowing the geomagnetic shield to drop. Incoming galactic cosmic ray flux creates more low-level clouds, more snow, and more albedo effect as more is heat reflected a colder climate.
Active sun has an enhanced magnetic which induces a geomagnetic shield response. Earth has fewer low-level clouds, less rain, snow and ice, and less albedo (less heat reflected) producing a warmer climate.
That is how the bulk of climate change works, coupled with (modulated by) sunspot peak frequency there are cycles of global warming and cooling like waves in the ocean. When the waves are closely spaced, the planets warm; when the waves are spaced farther apart, the planets cool.
The change on cloud cover is only a small percentage, and the ultimate cause of the solar magnetic cycle may be cyclicity in the Sun-Jupiter centre of gravity. We await more on that.
Although the post 60s warming period appears to be over, it has allowed the principal green house gas, water vapour, to kick in with more humidity, clouds, rain and snow depending on where you live to provide the negative feedback that scientists use to explain the existence of complex life on Earth for 550 million years. Ancient sedimentary rocks and paleontological evidence indicate the planet has had abundant liquid water over the entire span. The planet heats and cools naturally and our gasses are the thermostat.
Check the web site of the Danish National Space Center.
Keeping in mind that windmills are hazardous to birds, be wary of the unintended consequences of believing and contributing to the all-knowing environmental lobby groups.