[flagged]
It's a coincidence, and the "interesting coincidence" framing is the dumbest of the rhetoric (aka propaganda) tools out there. It's the basest of the rhetorical tricks, put together this way. Relying on psychology to produce inference from implication, and biology to produce the dopamine hit subconsciously underlying a sense of achievement that helps slide the BS in YOUR head (or the heads of your "paymasters") past the psychological defenses of others.
It's too bad we don't fortify more heads as standard practice, maybe the internet wouldn't spread stupidity like the drinking water from a 19th-century pump spread cholera.*
See:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc
Etc.
But in general, solar cycle isn’t “hotter”; sunspots in fact are cooler spots.
I’m far from knowledgeable in this area but I’ve never heard of a relationship before. (ed)
"Do scientists think that changes in solar irradiance due to the 11-year solar cycle could be strong enough to cause the current change being measured in Earth's climate?
In a word, no. "
“Sustained changes in solar radiance – that is changes that occur over decades or centuries – could potentially have an effect on Earth's climate system, which is why such information is included, along with a variety of other natural and human-driven influences, in climate models.“
Increasing solar radiation at a time when greenhouse gas concentrations are higher absolutely will cause warming. If it didn’t, the entire basis of anthropogenic global climate change wouldn’t really work. Would the effect be less severe if humans didn’t put tons of greenhouse gas in the air, yes. Would warning still occur without an increase in solar radiation, yes. Do the two together have a greater effect than either alone, yes.
“the Sun's energy output only changes by up to 0.15% over the course of the cycle, less than what would be needed to force the change in climate that we see. Also, scientists have not been able to find convincing evidence that the 11-yr cycle is mirrored in any aspects of the climate beyond the stratosphere – such as surface temperature, rainfall or wind patterns.“
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/EnergyBalance/pag... Indicates that 5-6% of solar energy is thermal radiation from the surface absorbed by the atmosphere (greenhouse effect).
This page states that CO2 is 20% of greenhouse effect https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle/page5... "Carbon dioxide causes about 20 percent of Earth’s greenhouse effect; water vapor accounts for about 50 percent; and clouds account for 25 percent."
So 1 to 1.2% of sun's energy is CO2 greenhouse effect. So a 10% change in CO2 greenhouse effect is roughly the same amount of energy as the observed change solar cycle output. tldr; 0.15% of sun's energy output is actually a lot of energy!
I think your calculation might be mistaken, that number doesn’t make a lot of sense and is not supported by measurements. See Figs 13 & 16 in the following paper for magnitudes of temperature variation attributed to solar cycle variation.
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/grantham-i...
The link you provided summarized the solar cycle’s contribution to warming as “very small”. This paper also notes that the solar cycle’s affect in the last 50 years has been cooling on average, and that recent warming trends are “almost entirely” due to changes in CO2.
> absolutely will cause warming
Notice how the quote has no certainty (not sure where you got yours from) and how it suggested that there would be an "effect" (not sure where you got the warming from either).
See, for example, this article from this global-warming-denialist source:
Climate change deniers have a whole lot of it.
You don’t need to prove causality to throw a wrench in the argument.
Make a statement then say “prove me wrong”
Climatologists can make the same argument. There aren't many earth-like planets with which to conduct controlled experiments.
Climate scientists have made many such predictions starting in the 1970s. Exxon even had scientists in the 80's predicting climate change with surprising accuracy, and then they buried that research because it would hurt their business.
Discrepancies to reality can be investigated and used to make the model better.
You can then use the model to see how things would be with more or less CO2-emissions.
Running a simulation might be useful for directing scientific research, but it is not science.
> "In the study, published in Geophysical Research Letters, Millán and his colleagues estimate that the Tonga eruption [January 15th] sent around 146 teragrams (1 teragram equals a trillion grams) of water vapor into Earth’s stratosphere – equal to 10% of the water already present in that atmospheric layer. That’s nearly four times the amount of water vapor that scientists estimate the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption in the Philippines lofted into the stratosphere."
Ref: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/tonga-eruption-blasted-unpr...
Thank you for sharing the approved language and allowing us to avoid cognitive dissonance