It seems that global warming has been slowing down for at least the last 20 years. In other words, the rate of warming is less.
In addition, there are signs that the reason for the reduced GW rate is because global cooling is happening. "As we move further into 2020, solar activity dwindles. This year, solar activity will be marked as the lowest in over 200 years. The low in the sun's 11-year cycle will also have at least some repercussions for the climate here on Earth," ~snip~
You're right, solar activity is dwindling. But that has happened for over 35 years already, and for over 35 years temperature's been rising, therefore, the highs we experienced are not directly caused by the sun.
Here's an image that pictures that:
Picture.(Sources are
NASA GISS,
Krivova et al. (2007) and
PMOD).
Maybe in the past the sun was more significant, but studies have pointed out this has changed. Here's another picture:
Picture. The sources for this study are: Meehl et al. (2004), Stone et al. (2007), Lean & Rind (2008) and Huber & Knutti (2011).
There are, at the very least, 19 studies that point how the sun's influence in global warming is minimal.
You can check them here.
Also, what's your scientific and falseable source that global cooling is a thing? Because
quite a lot of studies converge into the idea there is none.
~snip~
They are not. If you read the linked paper...
Singh, A.K., Bhargawa, A. Prediction of declining solar activity trends during solar cycles 25 and 26 and indication of other solar minimum. Astrophys Space Sci 364, 12 (2019).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10509-019-3500-9Their assertions are not based on the Milankovick cycles, but on periodic sunspot activity and what climate has seemed to correlate with that in the past.
This of course cannot be an incorrect hypothesis. But one may argue whether the sum of cooling and warming effects leads to a net of cooling or warming, or whatever.
What I said above
PLUSThat article points for dwindling solar activity but it does not mention at all the implications it have for global warming. You're sort of forcing a correlation the author did not explicit. If he did, however, I'd like you to point it out to me - word-searching for "global warming/climate change/climate/temperature" didn't wield me any results. Lastly, I have serious doubts whether these guys are climatologists given they're analysing sun activity pattern, so it's not like their prediction of climatic impacts have the same validity as those operating in that field.
What I did was simply correct your mistake, using your link. Actually the scientific link in the popular article. I assume that's okay right? You said this...
And you were wrong. The article and the article it linked to didn't say that.
I really actually laughed at this...
Last I heard there were people who specialized in glaciers, some on historical glaciers, some on sedimentary deposits on the ocean floors. There are people who use boreholes to read climate from thousands of years ago. Others that look at isotope fractions in the air, and on the ground, and in rocks. Plus the guys that wonder about correcting satellite sensors' data streams. And a hundred other areas of science related to climate. This idea that there is a single species, no doubt created by global warming, a sort of human creature who is a climatologist, is a new one.
So you don't trust astrophysics? Or those that work in the field? I assume then you don't want your climatologists messing around with astrophysics? But that makes no sense. Seems to me like an astrophysicist certainly could tell you something about the direct and indirect effects of the Sun on Earth's climate. More watts in, less watts in. Watts out. Effect on clouds, high or low. Who do you want to trust? The climatologist that just knows bugs?
