I think we can ignore the Maunder Minimum theory, it wasn't worldwide, in fact mainly confined to countries close to the North Sea.
For the first half of that period in the 16th century the US NE was warmer than normal. The Europeans that went to US might of though it was happening there, but we now know, at the same latitude North America is colder than Europe.

Hopefully. Or perhaps we are experiencing the effects of a steady rise in the solar constant, accompanying a similar rise in solar magnetic variability and reduced sunspots.
The real problem is the vested interests on both sides of the argument between the “greenhouse” believers and the “solar warming” believers.
Because both scientific sides have economic interests (Grants) and reputations in this matter...
Many scientific disputes throughout history. Are not purely scientific.
Edit: Perhaps both sides are partially correct.

Scientists are always skeptical. Or at least should be.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

97% may be correct. Or just a consensus that is incorrect. As has happened many times.

Hehe:)
Name one example where a scientific consensus of 97% is incorrect.
Now we are talking about several thousand of scientists from all over the world!

Isn't at least part of the problem when a debate is held in public or on TV, the organisers try to have a one-on-one debate. And if they were to have a debate that reflects the numbers more honestly, Joe Public would complain that the believers were ganging up on the skeptic.
There will be no winners in our lifetime, but I do wonder what our descendants might have to say about our lack of action.

Isn't at least part of the problem when a debate is held in public or on TV, the organisers try to have a one-on-one debate. And if they were to have a debate that reflects the numbers more honestly, Joe Public would complain that the believers were ganging up on the skeptic.
There will be no winners in our lifetime, but I do wonder what our descendants might have to say about our lack of action.

They will not. They won't be. The cockroach won't care.

You believe accepted scientific consensus hasn't been proven incorrect and replaced? Or the 'correction' hasn't been proven wrong and replaced, and that 'correction' hasn't been proven wrong and replaced, and...

It happens all the time, but when in the case in GW the fraction of thousand scientists that don't belive that humans are the cause are so tiny, almost insignificant, I belive those 98% are probably right.

And no one in these forums has the expertise to choose between either, and respected, scientific side.

Politicians have not the expertise either but have to choose anyway.
Scary, but true!

Anyway to us AGW "belivers".
There are solutions.

Ask a much more simple question, "Can man change the climate?"

The 97% did not include the Failed to Respond or Solar Induced Climate Change Scientists. It was specifically targeted.

Hmm...
It was not targeted.

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/meta

Expert consensus is a powerful thing. People know we don’t have the time or capacity to learn about everything, and so we frequently defer to the conclusions of experts. It’s why we visit doctors when we’re ill. The same is true of climate change: most people defer to the expert consensus of climate scientists. Crucially, as we note in our paper:
Public perception of the scientific consensus has been found to be a gateway belief, affecting other climate beliefs and attitudes including policy support.

Solar activity is only one of the reason that climate change.
I'm quite sure that scientists are including that in their models how climate change behaves.
What's your point?

How many of the climate change skeptics are funded by businesses that have a vested interest in resisting any global warming measures, such as ExxonMobil and Koch Affiliated Foundations.

Solar activity is only one of the reason that climate change.
I'm quite sure that scientists are including that in their models how climate change behaves.
What's your point?

Why are you so sure?

Unfortunately, in the present politicization of this issue. Both sides have a vested issue regarding their side.

I said I'm "quite sure" :)
Anyway Solar activity is a natural reason to GW, right?

Net human and natural percent contributions to the observed global surface warming over the past 50-65 years. The studies are Tett et al. 2000 (T00, dark blue), Meehl et al. 2004 (M04, red), Stone et al. 2007 (S07, green), Lean and Rind 2008 (LR08, purple), Huber and Knutti 2011 (HK11, light blue), Gillett et al. 2012 (G12, orange), Wigley and Santer 2012 (WG12, dark green), Jones et al. 2013 (J13, pink), IPCC AR5 (IPCC, light green), and Ribes et al. 2016 (R16, light purple). The numbers in this summary are best estimates from each study; uncertainty ranges can be found in the original research.

The biggest difference between natural climate change, and what is happening now is the speed of the change. It is true that the earths wobble, and solar activity affect climate, but over tens of thousands of years. Not 100 Years. What is happening now is getting faster and faster. By adding or subtracting all the current solar other earth conditions, the result just doesn't account for the measured activity. One of the big problems with man made climate change is the inertia of the system. Suppose you have a giant heavy ball on a flat surface. You shoot it with a bb gun. It does nothing. Then over 50 years, you shot it with 1000 bb guns, and it starts to roll. If you stop firing the bb's, it keeps rolling for a very long time.

I used to go back and forth on this issue, but then I dove straight into the actual science. Through out the world, there is only one large, organized group that denies that man caused it. The US Republican party, which does get a lot of its funding from the energy companies. For some reason the Republican party thinks it knows more than the 97% of climate scientists, Stephen Hawking, Michio Kaku, Brian Greern, Neil Degrass Tyson, and others.

Steve

---

Warning, addicted to SETI crunching!
Crunching as a member of GPU Users Group.
GPUUG Website

For some reason the Republican party thinks it knows more than the 97% of climate scientists, Stephen Hawking, Michio Kaku, Brian Greern, Neil Degrass Tyson, and others.

Stephen Hawking, Michio Kaku, Brian Green and Neil Degrass Tyson are not climate scientists.
But they do know what it means with a scientific concensus to peer-reviewed articles and conclusions.
And I also believe that many within the US Republican party also knows what is happening and that the cause is we humans.
I find it very strange that some are still deniers because there is a lot of money to earn from the transistion from fossile fuel to other energy sources.

The U.S. National Academies on Monday released a public peer review of a draft document called the U.S. National Climate Assessment, a legally required report that is being produced by the federal Global Change Research Program. The document, which is in its fourth installment, closely surveys how a changing climate is affecting individual U.S. states, regions, and economic and industrial sectors. The final version is expected later this year; the last version came out in 2014 during the Obama administration.

It's Earth Hour today.
An international campaign that urges households and businesses to suspend lighting for an hour and, if desired, turn off non-essential electrical appliances to pay attention to the climate issue.
Well I don't think many will pay attention to this.
In fact. Wouldn't it better to a fast day?
Our need and desire to eat is by far a bigger problem to the climate issue then the use of electricity.

Our breezy days are becoming ever more powerful:


New control strategy helps reap maximum power from wind farms

Every two and a half hours, a new wind turbine rises in the U.S. In 2016, wind provided 5.6 percent of all electricity produced, more than double the amount generated by wind in 2010, but still a far cry from its potential.

A team of researchers from The University of Texas at Dallas (UT Dallas) has developed a new way [to control wind turbines] to extract more power from the wind. ... indicate potential increases of up to six to seven percent [power generated for existing turbines]...


Wind energy's swift growth, explained

The wind industry is growing quickly around the world, especially in China and the U.S., where the total amount of electricity generated by wind turbines nearly doubled between 2011 and 2017.

All told, about 25 percent of global electricity now comes from renewable sources like hydropower, wind and solar energy...


Danish wind power whips up record 43% of electricity

Wind power generated 43.4 percent of electricity consumed in Denmark last year, a new record for the Nordic nation which aims to rely on renewables for half of its energy needs by 2030, authorities said Thursday...


Meanwhile, the polluting dirty old fossils continue their procrastinated decline.

All just a question of whether we have enough time...


All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

All just a question of whether we have enough time...

What the birth rate and death rate are ...
Man must contract

45 seems to like the Military. So who will he support the Military or Pruitt at the EPA.
Climate change could make thousands of tropical islands ‘uninhabitable’ in coming decades, new study says

More than a thousand low-lying tropical islands risk becoming “uninhabitable” by the middle of the century — or possibly sooner — because of rising sea levels, upending the populations of some island nations and endangering key U.S. military assets, according to new research published Wednesday.

The threats to the islands are twofold. In the long term, the rising seas threaten to inundate the islands entirely. More immediately, as seas rise, the islands will more frequently deal with large waves that crash farther onto the shore, contaminating their drinkable water supplies with ocean saltwater, according to the research.

The islands’ face climate-change-driven threats to their water supplies “in the very near future,” according to the study published in the journal Science Advances.

The study focused on a part of the Marshall Islands in the equatorial Pacific Ocean. Hilda Heine, president of the Marshall Islands, said in an interview that Wednesday’s journal article “brings home the seriousness” of the predicament facing her island nation.

“It’s a scary scenario for us,” she said.

The research also has ramifications for the U.S. military, whose massive Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site sits, in part, on the atoll island of Roi-Namur — a part of the Marshall Islands and the focus of the research.

The U.S. military supported the research in part to learn about the vulnerability of its tropical island installations. The Pentagon base at Roi-Namur and surrounding islands supports some 1,250 American civilians, contractors, and military personnel.

“This study provided a better understanding of how atoll islands may be affected by a changing climate,” Defense Department spokeswoman Heather Babb said in a statement. “While no decisions have been made about Department of Defense activities on the islands based on the study, DOD continues to focus on ensuring its installations and infrastructure are resilient to a wide range of threats. The department’s understanding of rising sea levels will enable the military services and agencies in affected areas to make informed decisions on how to continue to execute their missions.”

Just two big solutions that are underway:


China's electric carmakers bloom at Beijing auto show

Auto executives from across the globe are plugging their plans for an electric car future in China at the Beijing auto show, but they will find their Chinese counterparts are already motoring ahead. ...

... China hopes to reduce its dependence on imported oil and cut pollution, both strategic priorities for Beijing, and it has announced plans to phase out fossil fuel vehicles ... Unencumbered by history and the billions sunk into refining gasoline engines, electric presents a clean competitive slate for homegrown automakers.

"The entry hurdle is lower with an electric drive train than it has been with a combustion engine ... Zetsche welcomed the Chinese newcomers: "The moment you don't have competition you get lazy." ...

... Batteries remain a critical piece of every electric car and Beijing's protective embrace of the technology may ensure China becomes the world's battery lab. ...


Balancing nuclear and renewable energy

Nuclear power plants typically run either at full capacity or not at all. Yet the plants have the technical ability to adjust to the changing demand for power and thus better accommodate sources of renewable energy such as wind or solar power. ...

... "Flexible nuclear power operations are a 'win-win-win,' lowering power system operating costs, increasing revenues for nuclear plant owners and significantly reducing curtailment of renewable energy," ...

... The study helps to dispel long-held views that nuclear power plants must operate in "baseload" mode, producing power at maximum rated capacity whenever they are online. Nuclear plants can even respond dynamically to hourly electricity market prices and second-to-second frequency regulation needs, the team found. Power systems that include renewable energy must be more flexible to balance supply and demand at all times. Nuclear operators in France, Germany and other countries are familiar with this approach, but less so in the United States...



And aside: The UK enjoyed about 50% renewable power generation today. There has been ZERO coal-fired power output. And there is more wind power and solar power yet to be added to the power grid.


All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Australia's environment ministers have backed a plan for all packaging to be "recyclable, compostable or reusable" within eight years as part of an effort to fix the nation's waste crisis.

It's a start.

Cheers.

17 U.S. states sue Trump administration over vehicle emissions.

California and a group of 16 other states on Tuesday challenged the Trump administration's decision to revise strict U.S. vehicle emissions and fuel efficiency rules put in place under former President Barack Obama.

The 17 states and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia challenging the Environmental Protection Agency's decision in April to declare U.S. vehicle emissions and fuel efficiency rules through 2025 "not appropriate."

The legal challenge comes as Democrats and environmental advocates vow to aggressively challenge the Trump administration's plans to weaken the vehicle rules touted by the Obama administration as one of its biggest climate actions.

Cheers.