1 ...not to mention that we're still only averaging about two sunspots per month.  Even for a solar minimum, that's nothing. 

The anthropogenic global warming crowd has spoken:  The Sun Does Not Affect Climate...which naturally is more-or-less completely at odds with real verifiable historical data (eg the sunspot-count-versus-harvest data) which do not rely on "proxies" which must be interpreted.

All the data we're getting from the solar astronomers shows us a highly inactive sun.  The most interesting datum--the strength of the solar wind--has insufficient history for us to understand what it really means, but the most recent readings are the lowest of any that have been taken in the time we've been able to observe that parameter.

The claim is made that the sun's variability only runs about 0.2%, but in fact the sun is now producing about 6% less UV than it does at a typical solar maximum; I fail to see how such a large change in bolometric output can have no effect on Earth's climate.  (And, in fact, it is never mentioned whether that 0.2% figure includes the sun's total output or merely its visible light.)

And 0.2% represents a great deal of energy, anyway.

But if global warming/global cooling is caused by the sun, and not by SUVs and coal and wasteful Americans, there's not a damn thing anyone can do about it. 

2

But if global warming/global cooling is caused by the sun, and not by SUVs and coal and wasteful Americans, there's not a damn thing anyone can do about it.

And that means we can't use it as an excuse for Big Government to start running every aspect of people's lives, as well as to roll back the wealth and comfort created by the industrial revolution. Which would be a disaster.

3 Well, no, theoretically even if it was caused by the sun, there's things we can do about it.

But if it's caused by the sun, it's not Mankind's Just Desserts for his Temerity in Creating an Unequal Capitalist Society, dontchaknow. If it becomes a pure matter of geo-engineering, people will ask inconvenient questions like "gee, maybe we'd like it a little warmer?" or "boy, we sure don't want another Ice Age". There's no moral dimension that demands us to Repent (or buy an indulgence...)

4 Side thought about solar irradiance and the percent-variation.

I found some charts published by NASA about solar irradiance as measured at the Earth. By eyeballing the chart, and running some quick computations, I don't see much more than 0.2% difference in that chart.

But I don't know if we have a good measure of total solar irradiance. We may (it appears) have a decent approximation of total solar energy absorbed by the Earth. But is there any scientific data about how percentage-variations in solar irradiance affect heat energy in the Earth's atmosphere and oceans?

Also, do we have good measures of solar output from before 1970?

Gotta agree with you, though. We'll miss global warming if the Little Ice Age strikes again.

Or if we discover that we aren't out of the most recent Ice Age, and the recent 10000-year lull in glaciation was a short breather of warmth in the middle of an Ice Age.

5 It would indeed be a disaster...and exactly what they want.
Have you seen the latest on the IPCC's core data (Jones and Wigley), the data they used to kickstart the whole mania?  Their data have been suspect for a while, especially since they've refused to let anyone else have a look at them, leading to howlers such as this one:
Jones’s response to a fellow scientist attempting to replicate his work was, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”
Numerous scientists continued to try and get the data, using FOI requests and other avenues, and just when it looked like they might win, Jones had this to say:
Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e., quality controlled and homogenized) data.
How convenient.
AGW hasn't been about science since the late 1990's.  It's been about money, power, and political control.

6

For some reason, that sounds remarkably similar to Michael Belleisle's explanation when he was asked to provide his source data for the his thinly-veiled excuse for gun control passing as a historical study.  Except that he was more original in his 'explanations.'  Unfortunately, if Thomas Malthus' hypothesis about population still refuses to die, AGW will not die any easier (And just because it is old does not mean it is a good idea.)

Still, the sun's relative calm might just mean we should take Drew Carey's line about standing out in the yard emptying out all the old aerosol cans we can get...

And of course, let us consider the flipside of the AGW fanatics - if man can effect the environment, why are they not worried we might send the Earth into an Ice Age by accident?

C.T.

7 Back in the 70's they were worried we were going into an ice age.  Some of the people pushing that are the exact same ones who are now pushing AGW, including Paul Ehrlich, the most highly lauded and rewarded "human negative indicator" of all time.  It was about the same things back then: world government, control of industry, etc.

8

Well, you have to admit that Ehrlich was willing to bet money on his ideas - which is more than we can say of many AGW advocates like Al Gore.  Of course, Julian Simon proved the point by winning the bet and the money from Ehrlich.  Too bad we can not get the White House science advisor to do the same thing, especially since he also believed in global cooling, once upon a time.

I like how at TVTropes, they took a swipe at AGW skeptics (Psst! CJ, I do not believe man-made AGW exists.) like Jim Inhofe by saying the idea has been around longer than Al Gore.  But like Malthus, an old idea does not make it better, but rather, worst.

C.T.

9 http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTBiMTRlMDQxNzEyMmRhZjU3ZmYzODI5MGY4ZWI5OWM

if I used the link insertion tool right, this is the piece Toren referenced (H/T Glenn).  "The dog ate all of my raw data, but you should put me in charge of the planet because I say I'm right"?

The sad thing is, while I'm sure I will get a momentary cathartic thrill from saying "I told you so" to all those who have spent a decade berating me on the subject, the price I--and everyone else on the planet--will have to pay for that moment of joy is Just.  Not.  Worth.  It.  It makes me sick to my heart to think about what we might go through... will there be a future Norman Borlaug to save us from a hundred years of frozen fields and reduced growing seasons, or will Malthus finally have his triumph?

For some odd reason, the one anecdote that keeps coming back to my mind is how northern Europeans drink mostly grain alcohol, and southern Europeans drink mostly wine.  The split happened as a direct result of (apparently sun-induced) climate change.  Hidden behind that anecdote lie the bodies of millions of people, cut down by starvation and disease because they couldn't get enough to eat in the cold weather.  Man, I don't want to go there.

10 How much do you want to bet that rich western liberals will be the first in line demanding an end to foreign food aid?  After all, the west has enough production capacity and technological begoobery that we could *probably* make up the deficit fine. . . but not necessarily still have the surplus we send to everyone else in the world.

Of course, even if most of the third world is low enough latitude to not really be effected climate-wise, an end to western food aid would probably create almost as many dystopian consequences.  Not even mentioning how *Russia* probably couldn't supply their own food. . .