>The sun's variation in intensity over the solar cycle has a typical 0.2C difference... and even then, 5 years later you get the 0.2C "back".
On what are you basing this statement? The climate models I've looked into were wrong about the effect of clouds and ignore types of energy from the sun.
>- There is no consensus that is going to happen; or even a majority view that it will.
If I am walking towards someone in a rocking chair, they may be moving towards me or away from me at any point, but overall I will get closer. Similarly, if solar cycle causes a variation of .2C back and forth, it doesn’t eliminate a non-oscillating trend.
When weighing what is likely to happen, fringe beliefs don’t matter much. I would not bet on a Maunder minimum to save us, because A) it is not a big enough effect even if it happens, and B) it is probably not going to happen.
You've edited your comment-- I'm glad you've reconsidered including the below which violate the site guidelines:
> Oh please, spare me the polemics.
> Do you stand to benefit financially, directly or indirectly, from climate change?
But: I think most of us stand to lose significantly from climate change.
On what are you basing this statement? The climate models I've looked into were wrong about the effect of clouds and ignore types of energy from the sun.
>- There is no consensus that is going to happen; or even a majority view that it will.
Consensus is not science!