You are confusing two different things.

Solar variation is not the cause of the current warming. Got that? Good.

The climate in 1700 is somewhat harder to model. You quoted what I already said, and I see no reason not to just repeat it:

That seems straightforward. Nobody knows if there's a connection.

  Your comment on that post is

I don't understand your logic here. Those "conflating factors" in analyzing climate of the 14-19 centuries don't have anything to do with current climate. For that we have measurements of solar activity.

People have been looking for a solar activity/climate connection for literally hundreds of years*. They haven't found it yet. Understanding the connection between the Maunder minimum and the little ice age, if one exists, would be a huge advance in climate science. But it's not really possible to do science on the basis of "here's something we don't know because the data is poor or non-existent. Maybe there is something we don't understand, but we don't even know if there's anything there."

However, here is something to think about. If it were discovered that the solar variation during the Maunder minimum caused the temperature drop of the Little Ice Age, that would make the climate scientists say "oh my god, the highest estimates of warming due to the greenhouse effect are the right ones; it's a lot worse that the conservative estimates."

Because if the Maunder minimum actually did cause the little ice age, that implies that there must be a big positive feedback loop between radiative forcing and climate. The exact size of the feedback look is the main uncertainty in climate. The short term feedbacks are getting to be well understood. But if there's a large long-term feedback-- one that hasn't really kicked in yet-- then the greenhouse effect is really much worse than the average of current estimates.

But, in either case, whether the Maunder minimum does or doesn't explain all or part of the little ice age isn't really relevant to the question of whether we understand current climate, because we don't need proxies for solar activity to understand current climate: we have measurements. Saying "we haven't found a connection between the Maunder minimum and the climate" isn't bias-- it's just a statement of what we don't know.

--

*mostly in the century-long series of studies trying to understand the cause of ice-age cycles.

http://dilbert.com/strip/1992-...

"every year there are close to 140,000 jobs requiring a CS degree, but only 40,000 U.S. college graduates major in CS, which means that 100,000 positions go unfilled by domestic talent."

And this would be a logical inference if the only people looking for jobs were that year's college graduates.

But, actually, very few job openings are filled by fresh-outs.

Conclusion: mIsleading and false.

But the solar variation is not ten times as much. We measure the solar output. We know that this is not responsible for the current warming because we measure it.

You keep repeating that word "bias." The only bias I've seen you refer to is "every organization that produces a scientific result that confirms climate scientific models is biased." As far as I can tell, the only evidence you have for that purported bias is that you don't want to credit their results.

I have a suggestion: consider the possibility that the people who are telling you that all these institutions are biased might, themselves, be biased.

It isn't.

You just did the numbers.

It isn't.

Now you're talking a completey different subject, which is "what (if anything) shall we do about the warming?"

That's a good question to address... but addressing it by saying "the science is wrong, so we don't need to even think about what to do" doesn't address it.

The question of what we should do about global warming has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the science is correct. People are attacking the science to make political points-- specifically in order to not address the question "what should we do about it", because they are afraid that they would not like the answer.

'cause he sleeps in the cold and the deep R'lyeh. He wouldn't wake unless we warmed the oceans up...
uh, oh. Maybe we better worry.

Excellent-- that's good enough for a back of the envelope calculation. I like back of the envelope calculations.

My calculator says that the fourth root of 1.001 is 1.00025, though. I think you slipped a decimal.

In either case, though, that's not enough to explain the current warming. Does not explain enough of the current warming to really bother with.

..which is about three hundred years before the Maunder minimum.

Sorry-- Phil Plait wrote a detailed analysis of the claims that decreases solar activity means that the Earth is likely to slip into a mini ice age.

The new model of the solar dynamo is new, but doesn't mention a "mini ice age". The part Plait analysed is not new.

Ah, I thought you were a skeptic, but turns out you're a denier. My mistake. It is quite amazing how deniers will do anything possible to avoid actually doing a calculation.

You asserted, with no evidence, that the change in total solar irradiance between active sun and quiet sun is a plausible explanation of the 20th century warming. A quick back of the envelope analysis would show that this is not the case. But you're not willing to do the calculation, and not willing to look at the calculation from people who have.

You just did a back of the envelope calculation. Do it again, but this time inserting actual numbers. You can start here: http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/...

This is science, not argumentation 101. Don't make stuff up, do the calculation.

A few percent.

I'm just not sure why we should care. There are no known non-thermal effects of microwaves, and the thermal energy of a cell phone just isn't enough to pay attention to-- three watts, when it's transmitting at full power.

http://physicsbuzz.physicscent...

Well, any company that isn't making money from diabetes would still be interested in a cure. They don't care if some other company is making a profit.

The article is about cystic fibrosis. Cystic fibrosis is coded in the genes. End of story.

Unfortunately, it's easy to say that just because it's in the genes doesn't mean it can't be "suppressed". But it turns out to be difficult to actually implement that.

This is a large part of what the actual article is written about: gene therapy sounds easy. But it isn't.

Correct. Changes in total solar irradiance is, at most, a small contribution to global warming-- a few percent at most. We agree on this now?

Let me point something out: the amount of funding of climate science, and the amount of funding of organizations denying climate science, is roughly the same. Basically: for every scientist working on understanding climate, there is one person dedicated full-time to discrediting their work.

But the odd thing is: despite all the funding, none of work funded to attack climate science has yet come up with an alternate theory that is successful in explaining the data-- not even one that looks like it may some day come close to being successful.

Actually, I was listing the organizations doing work in climate science to point out how absurd what you were proposing is. All of the people actually doing science are biased? Do you really believe that? You don't have any credible evidence that any of these scientific organizations are biased, much less all of them.

Have you considered being as skeptical toward the people who are attempting to discredit the science as you are to the actual science? Who is telling you that all these scientific organizations are biased, and why would you believe them?

Sorry, but no, you're not. No possible amount of data can ever convince you once you have decided that every science agency in the world is lying and you will only believe science that is not coming from scientists.