Why would a weak 11-year solar cycle cause any significant cooling?

It is believed that TSI has increased by approximately 3 watts/meter^2 since the Dalton Minimum, if the Dalton Minimum actually caused the drop in TSI as many peer reviewed papers indicate that it did, it would only be logical to assume that another solar event similar to the Dalton Minimum would cause a long term reduction in TSI. So in other words not just solar cycle 24 but 24 through 26 could be weaker than normal. With reduced TSI over that term and negative feed backs you could probably manage to mislead and starve at least a hundred million or two hundred million people with your AGW theory.

Its a little more complicated than just the 11 year cycle.

22 years: Hale cycle, named after George Ellery Hale. The magnetic field of the Sun reverses during each Schwabe cycle, so the magnetic poles return to the same state after two reversals.

87 years (70–100 years): Gleissberg cycle, named after Wolfgang Gleißberg, is thought to be an amplitude modulation of the 11-year Schwabe Cycle (Sonnett and Finney, 1990).Braun, et al, (2005)

210 years: Suess cycle (a.k.a. de Vries cycle). Braun, et al, (2005).

2,300 years: Hallstatt cycle

Sorry Dana I am an AGW proponent but I am going to use a wiki item as well

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar-cycle-dat...

The thing to note in this is the scale on the left hand side 1365.5 to 1366.5 Watt per square meter for those not familiar with graphs or those that are try to create a false impression it looks like a large swing from minimum to maximum but as it can also move +/- 1 watt per square meter in just a couple of days the actual difference is almost nothing. Effectively if the left scale was 1-2000 Watt per square meter the graph would be a flat line.

And for Tomcats benefit TSI has been monitored since the late 70s by a succession of satellites the latest being SOHO and TSI hasn't changed in that time.

And for others benefit (TSI) is Total Solar Irradiance

The predictability of any solar cycle can vary a great deal. Solar constants don't, this is expressed a the primary energy source. Stefan-Boltzmann Law means a radiative equilibrium has to occur. True GHG's,(water) as the primary influences transition/transference of energy. Or as you nerdy guy's say; (forcing.)

Everyone knows it's not a one shop and stop planet. The last PDO proved that predictability and expectations in relationship to duration and magnitude are something not well understood nor measured. What I do find interesting...the earth receives the maximum solar output in January and the minimum 6months later. But alas!... I leave the simpler things to the "little ones". It's something I think most alarmist might handle?

Are you forgetting the Mauder Minimum as well. Even if you could pin the cooling in the early 1800s to volcanic activity, which I don't think you can, the correlation for other periods is also hard to argue away.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon-14_...

Clearly, when the sun is emitting more, it has more sun spots. I don't think the 11 year cycle is particularly important because as a geologist I think looking at such short periods of times is not particularly useful.

Note: oops, I should have read Evans post more carefully since he provided a similar link, though the point still stands.

Now I am confused. On the one hand you have said that solar activity does play a roll in climate variability, but not know, now you are saying that it does not.

It will be interesting to see the next couple of years if this downward trend in temperatures that we saw this year continues. If it does not, there will be serious reconsideration us skeptics will have to make.

Dana, reason doesn't motivate your belief in the end of the world. Ask yourself why you have so much faith in the models. There is no reliable evidence for CO2 causing climate variation and you know it.

To not recognize that political groups see AGW as a vehicle to implement policies they have been in favor of long before global warming was on the table is either willfully ignorant or tragically naive.

You question the beliefs of "deniers" why not question your own? The best scientists are supposed to be impartial to the outcomes of their experiments. It's difficult to be objective when you have a clear desire for one outcome over another.

Skepticism is apparently OK for every theory BUT AGW.

Man doesn't understand the "why" just yet, if it does at all, but the correlation is undeniable:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28...

Odds are, the cause of the solar cycle variations also affects Earth's climate. Trace CO2 levels in Earth's atmosphere affect neither.

There's definitely a correlation.

You don't deny the correlation do you? That would make you.... a..... denier! A typical denier. A denialist denier denying that you deny your denialist denial. Denier!