<p>The IPCC do mentions solar minimums and maximums, as part of extremely careful treatment they do of the reconstructions and predictions for the changes in solar irradiance. <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf" rel="noreferrer">The Assessment Report 5, Working Group 1, Chapter 8</a>, have a whole section (~4 pages) dealing with solar irradiances.</p>

<p>If the IPCC don't mention grand solar maximums/minumums that often, is because the research in the area have shown that solar minimums and maximums have smaller impact in climate than other factors. Therefore, such factors deserve more attention, like Greenhouse gases or land use changes. These factors deserve more attention both because they have a greater impact on climate and because we can do something about them. When it comes to solar activity we can't do much anyway.</p>

<p>The work of the IPCC is to combine the research of the whole scientific community, their conclusions are not based in the result of a single study but in the combination of pretty much all of them. Some studies could be contradictory, so instead of cherry-picking what suits them, they compare and combine all the studies to have the most reliable answers and a good idea of the uncertainties. If predictions of multiple models differ a lot it means uncertainties are large. If they all give the same result, we can be a bit more confident about it.</p>

<p>For example, the figure 8.11 compares the reconstruction of solar irradiance between years 1750 and 2000 from six studies:</p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/Boi8z.png" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/Boi8z.png" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

<p>You can see how the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalton_Minimum" rel="noreferrer">Dalton minimum</a> shows up around 1810-1820, but the total solar irradiance change is rather small (less than 1 W for over a total of 1360 W).</p>

<p>Here some excerpts from the IPCC reports that are relevant to this question, and where solar minimums are mention and considered in the wider context of climatic forcing (text between square brackets were added by me for clarification):</p>

<p>Page 662:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Satellite observations of total solar irradiance (TSI) changes from
  1978 to 2011 show that the most recent solar cycle minimum was lower
  than the prior two. This very likely led to a small negative RF [Radiative Forcing] of
  –0.04 (–0.08 to 0.00) W m<span class="math-container">$^{–2}$</span> between 1986 and 2008. The best
  estimate of RF due to TSI changes representative
  for the 1750 to 2011 period is 0.05 (to 0.10) W  m<span class="math-container">$^{–2}$</span>. This is
  substantially smaller than the AR4 estimate due to the addition of the
  latest solar cycle and inconsistencies in how solar RF has been
  estimated in earlier IPCC assessments. There is very low confidence
  concerning future solar forcing estimates, but there is high
  confidence that the TSI RF variations will be much smaller than the
  projected increased forcing due to GHG during the forthcoming decades.
  {8.4.1, Figures 8.10, 8.11}</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Page 690 (explicit mentions of grand solar minimums):</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong>8.4.1.3 Attempts to Estimate Future Centennial Trends of Total Solar Irradiance</strong></p>
  
  <p>Cosmogenic isotope and sunspot data (Rigozo et al., 2001;
  Solanki and Krivova, 2004; Abreu et al., 2008) reveal that currently
  the Sun is in a grand activity maximum [a.k.a. <strong>grand solar maximum</strong>] that began about 1920 (20th
  century grand maximum). However, SC [solar cycle] 23 showed an activity decline not
  previously seen in the satellite era (McComas et al., 2008; Smith and
  Balogh, 2008; Russell et al., 2010). Most current estimations suggest
  that the forthcoming solar cycles will have lower TSI [Total Solar Irradiation] than those for
  the past 30 years (Abreu et al., 2008; Lockwood et al., 2009; Rigozo
  et al., 2010; Russell et al., 2010). Also there are indications that
  the mean magnetic field in sunspots may be diminishing on decadal
  level. A linear expansion of the current trend may indicate that of
  the order of half the sunspot activity may disappear by about 2015
  (Penn and Livingston, 2006). These studies only suggest that the Sun
  may have left the 20th century <strong>grand [solar] maximum</strong> and not that it is
  entering another <strong>grand [solar] minimum</strong>. But other works propose a <strong>grand [solar]
  minimum</strong> during the 21st century, estimating an RF within a range of
  -0.16 to 0.12 W m<span class="math-container">$^{–2}$</span> between this future minimum and the present-day TSI (Jones et al., 2012). However, much more evidence is needed and at
  present there is very low confidence concerning future solar forcing
  estimates.</p>
  
  <p>Nevertheless, even if there is such decrease in the solar
  activity, there is a high confidence that the TSI RF variations will
  be much smaller in magnitude than the projected increased forcing due
  to GHG (see Section 12.3.1).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Summarizing, the IPCC consider solar irradiance variations, the timing of solar minimums and maximums. However, it consider also many other factors that also affect Earth's energy budget. Then, they do predictions based on the combined effect of all these factors. In contrast, some people tend to focus on just one factor (as solar activity) and erroneously assume that it will dominate over all the others.</p>

<p>For the particular case of solar activity, as you can see in the cites above. The <strong>IPCC acknowledge the possible occurrence of a solar minimum in the future, but combining all the models they conclude that there is a high confidence that its effects will be much smaller in magnitude than the projected increased forcing due greenhouse gases</strong>.</p>

<p>Part of the reason your question might not be well received is because it starts from an assumption that is false: "climate experts from the UN/IPCC never mention Grand Solar Minimum". They do mention it, and if you follow the references in the IPCC you will find plenty of discussion about Dalton, Maunder and older Grand Solar Minimums. And part of that discussion is to estimate the real impact that those events can have in Earth's climate. Then the IPCC get those estimates and figure out how they interplay with the many other factors that conjugate to determine current and future Earth's climate.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-17T19:54:26.827Z
There is no mention "Grand Solar Minimum" in Chapter08. The 2 mentions of the "Maunder Minimum": one cites a study and mentions its estimates are opposite to most studies, and the other one is an estimate based on studying other distant stars.. mentions of solar cycles are all based on the 1750-to-present estimates by 4 studies and point out discrepancies, but still show a clear correlation between solar activity and TSI. The Maunder Minimum ended in 1715 and it's so convenient to cherry-pick the data starting 1750.. and with different temporal resolution like 5 or 7 years..
daniel brastaviceanu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-17T19:56:55.390Z
This study provides TSI graphs that go back to 1600 https://arxiv.org/pdf/1601.05397 and you can see why the IPCC "experts" left it out of their literature.
daniel brastaviceanu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-17T20:04:55.460Z
But anyways, TSI encompasses all the spectrum and if we look at what wavelengths from the Sun have the most heating effect here on Earth, we realize it's UV,, not infrared because the Sun is so far.. so it would be more relevant to look at UV output of the Sun during solar cycles and Grand Minimums/Maximums. Then the numbers would be more significant because they are not diluted within all the spectrum, from witch most wavelengths are irrelevant for heating effect. Cosmic ray increase affects climate also but those are particles.
daniel brastaviceanu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-17T20:17:24.030Z
IPCC acknowledging solar Minimums and Maximums (11-year cycle) is irrelevant because this question is about GRAND Solar Minimums. Also, pointing to the latest IPCC report, citing cherry-picked older papers already rendered obsolete by monitoring data is irrelevant. This answer in not satisfactory. A quick "find in text" with keywords "Grand Solar Minimum" in IPCC literature reveals "0 on 0" results. I will keep the question as it is.
daniel brastaviceanu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-17T20:25:34.193Z
@danielbrastaviceanu How can you say that they don't mention grand minimums and maximums? Text search is not enough: The two references to "grand minimum" in the section about the Solar irradiance obviously refer to grand solar minimums.
Camilo Rada
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-17T20:35:29.940Z
@danielbrastaviceanu - so the paper you cited in the comment clearly says the new sunspot assessments have no impact: "Using the SILSO record, global warming estimates attributable to solar variability over the last four centuries may be up to 20 % less than current estimates suggest, perhaps causing only a 0.08 °C increase rather than a possible 0.1 °C increase in global surface temperature. These differences are negligible compared to uncertainties, and either contribution to overall global warming remains much less than those due to other climate influences."
Mark
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-17T20:39:27.180Z
Crums.. and downgrading citing estimations instead of data. Data shows snows on the Sahara Desert every winter since December 2016. And many more that I shared almost daily for the past years... Data shows crop losses from early season or late season frost,, I even shared summer snows!. That data tells me it's here since late 2016 and when I look at IPCC "reports" and media spreading I see "global warming is causing more snow" (because Polar Vortex broken by Arctic warming..) But I know as fact that during warming periods the polar vortex shrinks and stays up there, and during cooling periods
daniel brastaviceanu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-17T20:45:40.967Z
@danielbrastaviceanu I made some additions in between square brackets to the last excerpt of my answer (from page 690), please read it again so it is clear where grand solar minimums and maximums are mentioned.
Camilo Rada
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-17T22:46:46.727Z
Re "You can see how there are significant variations of solar irradiance."  Eyeballing the graph, the variation is less than 2 W/m^2 around a 1361 W/m^2 mean.  That's about 0.15% variation, most of which is the 11 year sunspot cycle.  Long-term variations seem to be less than half the solar cycle amount, and over the 250 year period of the graph, end up pretty close to neutral.  So does that count as significant, in terms of its effect on global temperature?  I wouldn't think so.
jamesqf
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-17T22:54:18.083Z
@jamesqf fair point, I changed the wording. Does it looks better now?
Camilo Rada
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-18T08:11:41.397Z
There are [some](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark) who claim that solar activity modulates cosmic rays which modulates cloudiness which modulates climate, but they're rarely mentioned because they're wrong.
gerrit
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-18T11:00:23.607Z
@danielbrastaviceanu How could the IPCC AR5 (2013) cite Kopp et al (2016), which came out years later?  The new [CMIP6 solar forcing paper](https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-2247-2017) does cite it, and the SATIRE reconstruction used in Kopp et al is essentially cited in the AR5 as Krivova et al (2010).
Deditos
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-19T20:18:33.543Z
@Camilo Rada: My problem wasn't so much with the wording, as with the idea that such small variations in solar irradiance could have significant effects.
jamesqf
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-19T21:18:54.283Z
@danielbrastaviceanu Thanks for your edit of the title. I've edited the answer to account for the change in the question. And I hope I've also clarified why they mention grand solar minimums rarely.
Camilo Rada
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-20T00:56:30.723Z
Camilo, TSI and "low confidence" blablabla so we think GSM should not be in the models because it's "insignificant"... But documented history shows us GSMs are indeed times when most parts of the globe have up to 40% population decrease to famine, pandemics, wars.. because of cold, large hail, floods, more snow,, etc. Is that important for the Public to know? The Public pays those scientific studies and monitoring at observatories and now with satellites etc,,, with Public Funds. Yet 97% of the Public has never herd of GSM or geoMagnetic Reversal/Excursion or think it's some crazy doom theory
daniel brastaviceanu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-22T22:25:36.123Z
Sorry man, I know it seams to be a correct answer because even if they were wrong about the importance of GSM, that is still what they thought.. but it goes beyond that: I think it's impossible that ''they thought'' that, and still believe it. This can't be the real answer. Many scientists have waived flags since the beginning. Even Patrick Moore left Greenpeace because he couldn't stand the fake science,, but if it didn't go viral and wasn't on the media, the Public doesn't know about it. What the Public knows is kindergarten science, that it's their fault and they should pay taxes.
daniel brastaviceanu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-22T23:25:34.500Z
@danielbrastaviceanu You said: "But documented history shows us GSMs are indeed times when most parts of the globe have up to 40% population decrease to famine, pandemics, wars.. because of cold, large hail, floods, more snow,, etc" Can you provide proof of that?
Camilo Rada
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-23T00:00:31.917Z
The wording is good: most (majority) parts of the globe have seen population decrease..
up to 40% means anywhere from >0% to 40%
and this combines deaths from famine (from crop losses), pandemics (from malnutrition and weak immunity, cold and wet conditions, mosquito and pest infestation transmitting disease, etc),, and wars for resources.
daniel brastaviceanu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-23T00:02:53.497Z
@danielbrastaviceanu But was is your source for saying that? Or it is just your own cherry-picking of facts?
Camilo Rada
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-17T17:39:07.040Z
2019-02-21T09:42:17.060Z
2019-02-21T09:42:17.060Z
Camilo Rada
<p>I think the main question has already been answered. But I would like to add to the fallacy that:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>History shows solar activity is the main driver of our climate, among other factors.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The Sun is undoubtedly the main source of energy for the planet and its climate. However, variations in solar activity are not the main cause of variations in climate. The main drivers are the "other factors".</p>

<p>Some examples of that are:</p>

<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faint_young_Sun_paradox" rel="noreferrer">Faint young Sun paradox</a>: The climate on earth has remained in the range that allows the existence of liquid water during billions of years despite large changes in the luminosity of the sun.</p>

<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles" rel="noreferrer">Milankovitch cycles</a>: The cycles that control the ice ages that have dominated the planet during the last million years are not due to changes in solar activity, but to changes in the orbit and orientation of the Earth.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-17T23:20:26.497Z
Max, thanks for mentioning the Milankovitch Cycles and indeed the Orbit Eccentricity 100K-year cycle is the main driver, but also related to the amount of energy the Earth gets from the Sun through shorter or greater distance (not CO2).. Precession of the Equinoxes also shifts the seasons through its 24-26K-year cycle, and when the axis passes through angles pointing to Aquarius and Leo the magnetic field wants to flip and that causes sudden and short but quite strong climatic episodes.. the Grand Solar Minimum cycle is a small beast compared to other factors, but ongoing and worth mentioning
daniel brastaviceanu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-18T00:05:16.557Z
That's correct @danielbrastaviceanu - the Grand Solar Minimum is a small beast compared to other factors - most significantly greenhouse gas forcing.
Mark
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-18T05:16:06.177Z
@daniel brastaviceanu: I'm not aware of any relationship between geomagnetic field reversals and the orientation of Earth's axis or its climate.  The abstract of the only paper I could find in a quick search (Doake) suggesting a correlation between reversals and climate is behind a paywall.
jamesqf
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-18T10:19:54.333Z
Another good example of drastical changes to the climated caused by "other factors"  worth mentioning could be the  [Great Oxygenation Event](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event).
ElDoRado1239
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-19T02:51:36.543Z
James, look for "Magnetic Excursions" (semi-reversals or double reversals). They happen every 12-13K years. The last one was as we entered Leo ~12800ya, the Gothenburg Magnetic Excursion, a rapid double reversal. The one before was the Lake Mungo Magnetic Excursion, ~26Kya as we entered Aquarius, a 120° deviation (semi-reversal) that stopped and went back, in about 100 years. The one before, 40Kya as we entered Leo, was a double reversal called the Leschamp Magnetic Excursion,, each flip took some 250 years with a 450-year period between them. Etc..
daniel brastaviceanu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-19T03:06:33.267Z
Magnetic Reversals are one single flip and the electromagnetic field stays in that orientation. They are rare indeed and not cyclic. But Magnetic Excursions are semi-flips or double flips.. same process, but either uncompleted and the orientation goes back as it was,, or the process completes a 180°, stays in that orientation for a randomly short while and completes another flip to go back in the previous orientation. The actual flips are short, only 1-2 centuries and the Peak where the magnetic field is weakest, when volcanism and climate etc go crazy, is just 1 to 3 decades.
daniel brastaviceanu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-19T03:24:32.127Z
After Peak, conditions get back to normal pretty fast but with remnant glaciers to melt over 1-3 centuries depending on the severity of the event. These Reversals or Excursions are bigger monsters than Grand Solar Minimums.. But they are rare (every 12-13K years, and smaller magnetic shifts as we enter Scorpio and Taurus also) and punctuated. Grand Solar Minimum happens every ~400 years and corresponds with colder periods of 35 to 110 years. They are well documented. We know they are times of famine, pandemics, wars etc. We knew it was coming, it's cyclic. Why 97% of the Public is not aware?
daniel brastaviceanu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-17T18:15:11.870Z
2019-02-17T18:15:11.870Z
Max M.
<p>I've read many papers about Grand Solar Minimums and Glassberg Minimums, known to science for a very long time, and studied and monitored with many public funds. History shows solar activity is the main driver of our climate, and additional contributors like orbital parameters and geomagnetic field intensity are also still connected to how much energy the Earth gets from the Sun.</p>

<p><strong>The present trend towards a Grand Solar Minimum was predicted since the '70s and we already see signs of it in solar activity and in our climate, yet it seems to have consistently been ignored by climate experts, by our governments, and by the media. Why is this the case?</strong></p>

<p>Solar activity reconstructed from tree rings and Carbon-14 data:</p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/z1jwO.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/z1jwO.jpg" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

<p>(Some pertinent studies regarding such Minimums include the iconic paper <a href="https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b7c0/87fa74f6855443e428db19007574eaf47eeb.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">J.A.Eddy, 1976: The Maunder Minimum</a> and <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266799418_Prediction_of_Solar_Activity_from_Solar_Background_Magnetic_Field_Variations_in_Cycles_21-23" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this 2014 paper by Valentina Zharkova on predicting the next solar cycles</a>, among many others.)  </p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-17T17:47:05.603Z
See my answer below and please consider changing the title to something like "Do “climate experts” from the UN/IPCC consider Grand Solar Minimums?". So to do not convey misleading assumptions right from the start. I hope you are also "willing to reshape preconceptions based on new evidence" as you say.
Camilo Rada
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-17T18:02:12.633Z
@CamiloRada provided both an excellent answer, and a good suggestion about rewording the question to avoid a false assumption.  Unfortunately there are still two other false assumptions in the question.  First, there is not a 'present Grand Solar Minimum ... predicted since the 70s".  And second, solar activity is not the main driver of our climate - for example the glacial and interglacial periods that have dominated the climate for the past million years or so are driven by subtle variations in earth's orbit and rotation.
Mark
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-17T18:28:07.043Z
If you're genuinely interested in this subject, I'll suggest that you look at the IPCC reports.  That way you'll see firsthand all the aspects of climate science that are addressed, rather than relying on second-hand information from others.  https://www.ipcc.ch
Mark
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-17T18:44:34.603Z
"Playing fair" is a two-way street.  You start out with some false claims - "solar activity is the main driver of our climate" - and some highly debatable ones - the very existence of a "Grand Solar Min/Maximum", and then want people to provide answers based on those assumptions.  Is that playing fair?
jamesqf
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-17T21:24:27.433Z
I really don't get your point. There's a solar minimum right now : you can check it with a small telescope and a white light filter. There's no activity to see : sunspots are very rare. Yet the global temperature has been rising and the last years have been the hottest on record.
Eric Duminil
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-18T07:22:02.840Z
Why even put climate experts in quotation marks? It makes it seem you’re here to teach experts a lesson, rather than wanting an answer that you’re open to understanding.
Sebastiaan van den Broek
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-18T08:08:07.010Z
There could be a good question in here, yet unfortunately it is loaded by implicit allegations of dishonesty.  Could you please edit your question to make it more neutral?
gerrit
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-18T09:48:24.823Z
@SebastiaanvandenBroek: To get an answer to your question, you might want to google OP's name and visit the first link.
Eric Duminil
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-18T16:22:53.520Z
@EricDuminil For me the first link is to his Facebook page, is that what you meant? (Not going to click on that since I don't want to support that company more than necessary)
pipe
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-19T11:54:38.463Z
@pipe Yes, that's the one I'm talking about. There's a wide range of topics : "how 4G makes you sick", "How to cure cancer with berries" and obviously "There's no climate change, IPCC is lying".
Eric Duminil
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-19T21:21:56.890Z
Daniel, can you clarify why you say we are in a grand solar minimum while your figure say we are (or just were) in a maximum (both of irradiance and sun spots). Something that is consistent with what the IPCC say but contradictory to you claim of a "present Grand Solar Minimum was predicted since the 70s".
Camilo Rada
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-19T22:06:42.223Z
Camilo, in that figure the data stops in the 50s when the paper was published. The Grand Maximum is finished since about 1998. What the IPCC says is what the IPCC says.. The new Grand Minimum we're in now (the Eddy Minimum) was indeed predicted.. it's cyclic.. like weekdays.. anyone saying it's not happening is delusional. It's like saying "No, today it's Not Tuesday,, Tuesdays don't exist.. or maybe but we don't know.. we'll see.. But we think it's global warming and it's your fault".
daniel brastaviceanu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-19T22:28:23.623Z
I say we're already in the Grand Minimum because: 90% of the glaciers are growing (except where there are active volcanoes or ridges nearby); multiple snows in Saudi Arabia, snows each year since 2016 in the Sahara, many snows in countries like Algeria, Morocco, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, India, etc; shorter summers, for example, last year here in Canada agri season started 1 month late and ended 1 month early,, and same this year,, with multiple summer snows at low latitudes; crop losses have been mounting in many parts of the globe for the past 3 years; etc. This is not global warming
daniel brastaviceanu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-19T23:23:48.013Z
Where are you getting 90%?  Looking at papers like [Global Glacier Changes: facts and figures](http://www.grid.unep.ch/glaciers/) seems to indicate the opposite trend.  Given the argumentation here, you might want to think about moving your question to https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/
azurefrog
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-20T00:20:12.303Z
Azurefrog, in the UN link you provided, data sets end in 2005... Try again
daniel brastaviceanu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-20T00:25:38.797Z
Antarctica has about 90% of the world ice mass and it's gaining more ice than it's losing.. ask NASA.. so just that proves my point but that was not what I meant. If you take glacier names one by one and look at their data, you will find that about 90% of them are growing now. Again, except those in proximity of active volcanoes or ridges, or those upstream of the oceanic currents warmed by some active submarine volcanoes or ridges. I did the excercise already and I won't do it again. You do it
daniel brastaviceanu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-20T07:14:06.577Z
@danielbrastaviceanu - According to NASA, Antarctica is losing ice: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ice-sheets/
Mark
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-20T07:35:58.320Z
@danielbrastaviceanu: So, what about all the Alps glaciers? They're shrinking fast (you can verify it by yourself, just go there and compare with old local pictures). What would be the reason they're shrinking? Also: weather is a chaotic system. It's really hard to predict reliably, but there's one sure thing : the more energy you put into the system (e.g. with global warming), the more chaotic it becomes, so weird weather happens more often. Snow in Sahara, extreme drought in Australia, wildfires in California. Global warming doesn't mean every point on Earth is hotter all the time.
Eric Duminil
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-20T13:26:46.300Z
Antarctica has seen gains in 2013 and 2014 which doesn't show up on that graph from NASA. And the most recent data in there is from 2017. The debate is warm on the Antarctic ice balance at NASA and only a few scientists like Jay Zwally dare to challenge the "concensus". What makes me very skeptical of the "concensus" is that it's explaining ice loss with CO2 and mostly focus on the East part and the Peninsula which are crippled with active volcanoes but "forget" to mention those volcanoes. http://robslink.com/SAS/democd57/volcanoes.htm overall, total ice cover and deapth are gaining
daniel brastaviceanu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-20T17:52:38.190Z
@danielbrastaviceanu We are not in a grand solar minimum. We just past a maximum but that's not the same. Look at current sun spots data at http://www.sidc.be/silso/yearlyssnplot values are going down, but there is no way to know if that's a minimum (until starts going up again) and current levels are equivalent to the Dalton minimum, that is proven that produced a only tiny change in radiative forcing.
Camilo Rada
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-20T17:55:15.963Z
@danielbrastaviceanu Regarding "90% of the glaciers are growing" that so SO wrong. I'm a glaciologist, I've ben 10+ times in Antarctica and have published papers about it. I'm personaly monitoring many glaciers in Patagonia and Yukon for up to 12 years now, and the vast majority of them are shrinking, only rare exceptions are growing, and In Patagonia the only significan one growing (Pio XI glacier) is precisely the only one near to an active volcano, so you are wrong in multiple accounts. Sorry, but "90% of the glaciers are growing" is a blatant fallacy.
Camilo Rada
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-21T04:16:48.700Z
My (big) mistake.  Even though they are in an uptrend they are still in the minus,, so they are not "growing" but shrinking less. I misinterpreted the graphs at the time.. Some are growing though.
daniel brastaviceanu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-21T09:41:54.920Z
I tend to stay out of climate change topics given their inflammatory nature. I do have some skepticism points, but much appreciate good science from all sides. But my view isn't important, I'm only interested to see this/similar Qs be where inquiries/challenges can be made and people on all sides can learn with open minds. So I hope you all can try to work through the contention points in the Q wording via further edits until everyone can be somewhat comfortable, and try to minimize tangential opinions/emotional language. It does look like some progress has been made, hope that can keep up :)
JeopardyTempest
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-21T09:42:05.797Z
I think it's fair to suggest this topic is ignored some places. The edit to wording it as a perception seems a bit heavily towards suggesting it can be discounted as an outlier opinion unfairly. Yet it's still not something you have empirical evidence to prove... so hopefully the wording is a little more friendly... I find in just about all science that words like "seems" and "I believe" are underutilized... as a meteorologist it goes miles (vs the many other tv forecasters who put things forth like "this WILL happen today"!)... openness to changing one's mind is indeed the heart of science!
JeopardyTempest
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-21T09:42:20.107Z
In the end people have the right to downvote what they think are bad questions/questions formed on bad premises, and to provide answers indicating such. In many situations, corrections/concerns can fit in comments as they can be quickly ironed out. But indeed this isn't a good forum for debating all the fine points when at major odds, so unfortunately going back and forth over many tiers of challenges just can't get anywhere here, and that just leaves the option of speaking with votes (or creating new followups)? But hopefully we can see the question keep reflecting your core position fairly.
JeopardyTempest
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-21T18:46:08.363Z
It seems to me that the real answer to the question as currently worded is that scientists don't mention grand solar minimums much because (1) they don't believe we are in a grand solar minimum, and (2) even if we are, the cooling effect will be insignificant compared to the heating effect of CO2.  Perhaps a lot of the problems with the question can be eliminated by asking about those two points directly - are we in a grand solar minimum as predicted by Zharkova, and if so, what impact will that have on climate change?
Mark
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-21T22:58:17.403Z
Mark, we can already see the impact on climate. As I mentioned 2 or 3 times in the comments here, it's snowing in very unusual places since late 2016,, like the Sahara Desert, like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc,, it just snowed in Las Vegas. I shared these events as they happened for the past 2-3 years. Last time it snowed in the Sahara it was in 1979, when we had a weak solar cycle. The 70s were colder because of that weak solar cycle, not CO2 because CO2 kept increasing. The argument that warmer climate brings more snow won't work, sorry, we should have seen this when it was warmer and we didn't.
daniel brastaviceanu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-21T23:04:53.573Z
If the UN/IPCC experts think solar activity variation has very little impact on climate and that CO2 has the most impact, this is their problem. It's not what we observed before their theory, and it's not what we're observing now. A theory must pass the test against evidence from the past. It didn't but it was pushed forth anyways. To me and to many, this is political science.. nothing to do with Good Scientific Process.
daniel brastaviceanu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-21T23:11:13.373Z
Now that we get record colds and record snows and record hail, etc, (all symptoms of a Grand Solar Minimum),, instead of declaring they were wrong, they go to ridiculous lows to keep status quo.. the Public is starting to make fun of scientists.. meaning those few scientists corrupted by a political agenda, are putting to shame all climate scientists. I think we need to clean up this mess
daniel brastaviceanu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-21T23:46:19.393Z
Looking at the figure in the question, we can see Grand Solar Minimums also have bigger cycles of ups and downs, and judging by that pattern it's safe to say the present GSM should look like the Oort Minimum, so I'm not saying ''OMG, run,, the little ice age is here!!!''. It should be a mild and short one,, but here on Earth it will not be like any of those GSMs because this time another cycle is in play: our geomagnetic field is weakening as we're probably in a Magnetic Reversal or Excursion, and this changes a few important parameters. It should swing weather into both hot and cold extremes.
daniel brastaviceanu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-21T23:53:44.603Z
As the Ozone layer is depleting at the same exponential rate as the weakening of the magnetosphere, we see an increase in UV indexes, thus extreme hot, especially in the Magnetic Anomaly zones like South Atlantic, now also South Pacific and North Africa, where the ozone is thinner most of the year. Please see here on windy.com https://www.windy.com/-Ozone-layer-ozone?ozone,16.805,19.336,3
From the month of June to August or September, those holes in the ozone close and a very big hole opens over Antarctica. If you follow the ozone layer, you will see it's very sensitive to solar activity now.
daniel brastaviceanu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-22T00:01:37.373Z
For example, when a CME impacts the magnetosphere, you will see the ozone layer deplete dramatically on the side of the impact, as if hydrogen atoms raining down at ~700km/s reach down to the ozone layer and bombard the O3 molecules to brake them and recombine to form H2O ¦:¬) and then UV indexes go extreme and sure enough it gets hot and humid as UV evaporates more water, and then sure enough more humidity traps more radiant heat and it gets more hot and humid,, but then it gets cloudy and it rains a lot so it cools back down.
daniel brastaviceanu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-22T00:05:35.517Z
CO2 is almost constant in the equation so it's irrelevant to those fluctuations. Also CO2 has nothing to do with the depletion of the ozone layer because it's heavier than air and stays in the lower atmosphere. Other gases can reach up there and deplete some ozone but they're only ''trace'' compared to what solar winds do.
Anyways, so as the magnetosphere and ionosphere shrink, the upper atmosphere is being eroded by solar winds and then solar and cosmic radiations can reach lower into the atmosphere, etc. This should swing weather increasingly into both hot and cold extremes.
daniel brastaviceanu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-22T00:14:18.620Z
All this should be all over the UN/IPCC literature and models, because we monitor and observe it, and without these parameters you can't ''predict climate'' for the next century with a straight face.. I think there were efforts to keep all this out of the literature and models, and there are efforts to keep it low in the media, political stage, etc. Why?
(PS: I won't take ''because IPCC thinks these phenomena aren't relevant for climate change'' for an answer.)
daniel brastaviceanu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-22T06:15:54.640Z
En fait, le plus gros problème, c'est juste que tu es complètement con. "il n’est pire sourd que celui qui ne veut pas entendre". Tu choisis juste les modèles, les données et les arguments qui t'intéressent en ignorant soigneusement tout ce qui ne colle pas à ton schéma de pensée. Va te faire soigner STP, c'est dur de faire avancer la société et la science avec des crétins pareils.
Eric Duminil
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-22T12:35:20.657Z
_'I won't take ''because IPCC thinks..." for an answer'_. But your headline question is asking what reason the IPCC gives for neglecting the GSM.  It doesn't matter if you or I think that their reasoning is incorrect or misguided, if that's the reasoning they give then it's a valid answer to the question you've asked.  Overall, it reads to me like you're asking a conditional "why" question by assuming, rather than establishing, that the condition is true.  And now you're refusing answers that explain how the condition is false.  I think that makes the question unanswerable.
Deditos
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-22T13:29:46.023Z
Deditos, you're technically right about the question. I woun't take "because IPCC thinks..." for an answer because they are supposed to be experts and rigurous. What they did is to look at TSI and right away dismiss GSM. Now that reality shows they were wrong, they aren't admitting it. Instead, they say "global warming is causing more snow and more cold snaps".. and that is what the media is pushing forward.. All this tells me that either these are not experts and shouldn't be taken seriously, or they didn't really "think that" but they had to do what they were paid for. Any other reasons?
daniel brastaviceanu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-22T17:07:56.553Z
I downvoted the question because you've got a good answer that you're unwilling to accept because it doesn't agree with your incorrect assumptions.  You've made multiple statements that contradict an overwhelming record of very well-supported data, yet provided no basis for the claims, other than some pictures of snow.  Clearly, you're not interested in understanding this subject.
Mark
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-22T18:13:14.613Z
Mark, again: the answer mentions that the IPCC do an extremely careful assessment of reconstructions and predictions, but only looking at TSI.. then, the answer says that greenhouse gasses and land use changes are greater influences to climate, but recent cooling climate trend shows that isn't true. Then it says that the IPCC's conclusions are based on the results of all scientific studies, but that is simply not true. To reach their conclusions and recommendations they need to inflate emphasis on CO2 for example (which they have stated having overestimated by over 45%, "for the greater good")
daniel brastaviceanu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-22T18:29:03.137Z
.. and to underestimate other factors like solar activity and geomagnetic field intensity, etc,, and to ignore much research in those fields.. many experts are showing how the IPCC has been cherrypicking data and it's really obvious when you analyze honestly, so saying "they don't cherrypick" isn't credible. Also, the answer says the IPCC combines all factors and indeed some factors like more greenhouse gases and more deforestation weren't present during the Maunder Minimum, but that doesn't stand against the Medieval Warm Period, neither against the recent cooling. They were wrong before even
daniel brastaviceanu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-22T18:29:46.477Z
@danielbrastaviceanu - Unfortunately, that's just more false assertions.  Look at global temperature data - there is no cooling trend.  Show me a reference to the "overestimated by 45%" claim.
Mark
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-22T18:39:43.463Z
.. trying to prove their theory, they are wrong now,,, why not admit it? You can vote how you want now, I think the answer is not satisfactory because of the above. A satisfactory answer should also explain why the media and the political stage make abstraction of GSM.. in other words, why is 97% of the Public unaware of these ongoing phenomena (Grand Solar Minimum and geoMagnetic Reversal/Excursion) knowing they are indeed significant events.. (and I won't take for an answer that "the IPCC thinks they're not" because that would mean they didn't do their homeworks)
daniel brastaviceanu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-22T23:18:48.850Z
Mark, sorry I shouldn't have wrote ''they have STATED having overestimated by 45%'' because they didn't actually state that. This is what Judith Curry and Nic Lewis found in their paper and stated. You can find the story here https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/global-warming-computer-models-co2-emissions/
And this was how Al Gore explained it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAthdZVlClI&t=209s
(I chose the Ice Age Farmer video intentionally, the guy shows more discipline and honesty, and empathy for the Public,, than any of the UN/IPCC political scientists)
daniel brastaviceanu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-22T23:26:50.300Z
PLEASE don't get me wrong: I'm all against dirty energies and technologies being systematically standardized while clean alternatives being systematically sabotaged,, and also against overpopulation/massconsumerism having been systematically incentivized through church and gvt benefits, etc. I'm all against slow poisoning the Flora and Fauna with industrial wastes and repurposed industrial wastes, etc. I'm sure dirty industries are behind much of the above. I want them down too. But please use valid arguments! Sorry but the CO2 argument has failed and will keep failing because it's invalid.
daniel brastaviceanu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-22T23:32:36.343Z
I'm sure you agree that dirty industries and politicians are good friends for a long time,, right? It's no secret that politicians like to make very rich friends and then to accommodate them.. Now dirty industries certainly don't want the Public to know about GSM and geoMagnetic Excursions and stuff,, especially not their investors,,, because this would mean they are doomed real soon and the next gold is in indoor food production, and any energy/technology best suited for indoor food production/distribution, and the special conditions ahead.. oh, and in adequate housing construction.
daniel brastaviceanu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-22T23:40:38.673Z
So I think dirty porcorations have been funding the UN ''scientists'' to come up with some BS and the media to propagate it and to create as much noise as possible,, all so that they never ever mention ''Grand Solar Minimum and geoMagnetic Excursion''.. and also armies of trolls on both sides of the ''climate debate'' (science VS dirty industries),, to create more noise and to gang up un anyone who dares mention those keywords and who doesn't bend down before the Al Mighty Gore and the IPCC commandments,, and to insult, intimidate and even threaten them away. I know, I've been there so long...
daniel brastaviceanu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-22T23:42:38.200Z
So if you were worried I was a troll for dirty porcorations, I'm not. And the proof is that I'm talking about Grand Solar Minimum and geoMagnetic Reversal/Excursion, and providing proof for them. Trolls on either side don't do that.
daniel brastaviceanu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-22T23:48:15.337Z
I also want dirty industries to shut down operations and secure their infrastructures before an eventual socioeconomic SHTF.. they just want to keep pumping and make as much money as possible, blaming you,, and then when SHTF, just abandon their infrastructures at the mercy of cataclysms. They know they are doomed soon, they monitor seismic activity with all their networks and spills are multiplying at the same rate as earthquakes and volcanic activity, that are ramping up at the same rate as the magnetosphere weakening. They just don't want people to know, especially not their investors..
daniel brastaviceanu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-22T23:51:05.427Z
So my strategy is to educate the Public about GSM and gMR/E as best as possible, and to make sure all investors understand that dirty industries are doomed soon and they should divest ASAP, and invest in indoor food production/distribution, and any clean tech and energy best suited for that and for the conditions ahead. And in adequate housing.
daniel brastaviceanu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-28T21:06:22.913Z
@danielbrastaviceanu You might find this Q&A interesting as well: https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/q/13131/11908
Camilo Rada
<climate-change><paleoclimatology><solar-terrestrial-physics>
Why do climate experts from the UN/IPCC rarely mention Grand Solar Minimum?
daniel brastaviceanu
# Why do climate experts from the UN/IPCC rarely mention Grand Solar Minimum?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-02-17)

I've read many papers about Grand Solar Minimums and Glassberg Minimums, known to science for a very long time, and studied and monitored with many public funds. History shows solar activity is the main driver of our climate, and additional contributors like orbital parameters and geomagnetic field intensity are also still connected to how much energy the Earth gets from the Sun.

**The present trend towards a Grand Solar Minimum was predicted since the '70s and we already see signs of it in solar activity and in our climate, yet it seems to have consistently been ignored by climate experts, by our governments, and by the media. Why is this the case?**

Solar activity reconstructed from tree rings and Carbon-14 data:

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/z1jwO.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/z1jwO.jpg)

(Some pertinent studies regarding such Minimums include the iconic paper [J.A.Eddy, 1976: The Maunder Minimum](https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b7c0/87fa74f6855443e428db19007574eaf47eeb.pdf) and [this 2014 paper by Valentina Zharkova on predicting the next solar cycles](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266799418_Prediction_of_Solar_Activity_from_Solar_Background_Magnetic_Field_Variations_in_Cycles_21-23), among many others.)

**Tags:** climate-change, paleoclimatology, solar-terrestrial-physics

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: See my answer below and please consider changing the title to something like "Do “climate experts” from the UN/IPCC consider Grand Solar Minimums?". So to do not convey misleading assumptions right from the start. I hope you are also "willing to reshape preconceptions based on new evidence" as you say.  
> **username_2**: @username_1 provided both an excellent answer, and a good suggestion about rewording the question to avoid a false assumption.  Unfortunately there are still two other false assumptions in the question.  First, there is not a 'present Grand Solar Minimum ... predicted since the 70s".  And second, solar activity is not the main driver of our climate - for example the glacial and interglacial periods that have dominated the climate for the past million years or so are driven by subtle variations in earth's orbit and rotation.  
> **username_2**: If you're genuinely interested in this subject, I'll suggest that you look at the IPCC reports.  That way you'll see firsthand all the aspects of climate science that are addressed, rather than relying on second-hand information from others.  https://www.ipcc.ch  
> **username_3**: "Playing fair" is a two-way street.  You start out with some false claims - "solar activity is the main driver of our climate" - and some highly debatable ones - the very existence of a "Grand Solar Min/Maximum", and then want people to provide answers based on those assumptions.  Is that playing fair?  
> **username_4**: I really don't get your point. There's a solar minimum right now : you can check it with a small telescope and a white light filter. There's no activity to see : sunspots are very rare. Yet the global temperature has been rising and the last years have been the hottest on record.  
> **username_5**: Why even put climate experts in quotation marks? It makes it seem you’re here to teach experts a lesson, rather than wanting an answer that you’re open to understanding.  
> **username_6**: There could be a good question in here, yet unfortunately it is loaded by implicit allegations of dishonesty.  Could you please edit your question to make it more neutral?  
> **username_4**: @username_5: To get an answer to your question, you might want to google OP's name and visit the first link.  
> **username_7**: @username_4 For me the first link is to his Facebook page, is that what you meant? (Not going to click on that since I don't want to support that company more than necessary)  
> **username_4**: @username_7 Yes, that's the one I'm talking about. There's a wide range of topics : "how 4G makes you sick", "How to cure cancer with berries" and obviously "There's no climate change, IPCC is lying".  
> **username_1**: username_0, can you clarify why you say we are in a grand solar minimum while your figure say we are (or just were) in a maximum (both of irradiance and sun spots). Something that is consistent with what the IPCC say but contradictory to you claim of a "present Grand Solar Minimum was predicted since the 70s".  
> **username_0**: username_1, in that figure the data stops in the 50s when the paper was published. The Grand Maximum is finished since about 1998. What the IPCC says is what the IPCC says.. The new Grand Minimum we're in now (the Eddy Minimum) was indeed predicted.. it's cyclic.. like weekdays.. anyone saying it's not happening is delusional. It's like saying "No, today it's Not Tuesday,, Tuesdays don't exist.. or maybe but we don't know.. we'll see.. But we think it's global warming and it's your fault".  
> **username_0**: I say we're already in the Grand Minimum because: 90% of the glaciers are growing (except where there are active volcanoes or ridges nearby); multiple snows in Saudi Arabia, snows each year since 2016 in the Sahara, many snows in countries like Algeria, Morocco, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, India, etc; shorter summers, for example, last year here in Canada agri season started 1 month late and ended 1 month early,, and same this year,, with multiple summer snows at low latitudes; crop losses have been mounting in many parts of the globe for the past 3 years; etc. This is not global warming  
> **username_8**: Where are you getting 90%?  Looking at papers like [Global Glacier Changes: facts and figures](http://www.grid.unep.ch/glaciers/) seems to indicate the opposite trend.  Given the argumentation here, you might want to think about moving your question to https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/  
> **username_0**: username_8, in the UN link you provided, data sets end in 2005... Try again  
> **username_0**: Antarctica has about 90% of the world ice mass and it's gaining more ice than it's losing.. ask NASA.. so just that proves my point but that was not what I meant. If you take glacier names one by one and look at their data, you will find that about 90% of them are growing now. Again, except those in proximity of active volcanoes or ridges, or those upstream of the oceanic currents warmed by some active submarine volcanoes or ridges. I did the excercise already and I won't do it again. You do it  
> **username_2**: @username_0 - According to NASA, Antarctica is losing ice: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ice-sheets/  
> **username_4**: @username_0: So, what about all the Alps glaciers? They're shrinking fast (you can verify it by yourself, just go there and compare with old local pictures). What would be the reason they're shrinking? Also: weather is a chaotic system. It's really hard to predict reliably, but there's one sure thing : the more energy you put into the system (e.g. with global warming), the more chaotic it becomes, so weird weather happens more often. Snow in Sahara, extreme drought in Australia, wildfires in California. Global warming doesn't mean every point on Earth is hotter all the time.  
> **username_0**: Antarctica has seen gains in 2013 and 2014 which doesn't show up on that graph from NASA. And the most recent data in there is from 2017. The debate is warm on the Antarctic ice balance at NASA and only a few scientists like Jay Zwally dare to challenge the "concensus". What makes me very skeptical of the "concensus" is that it's explaining ice loss with CO2 and mostly focus on the East part and the Peninsula which are crippled with active volcanoes but "forget" to mention those volcanoes. http://robslink.com/SAS/democd57/volcanoes.htm overall, total ice cover and deapth are gaining  
> **username_1**: @username_0 We are not in a grand solar minimum. We just past a maximum but that's not the same. Look at current sun spots data at http://www.sidc.be/silso/yearlyssnplot values are going down, but there is no way to know if that's a minimum (until starts going up again) and current levels are equivalent to the Dalton minimum, that is proven that produced a only tiny change in radiative forcing.  
> **username_1**: @username_0 Regarding "90% of the glaciers are growing" that so SO wrong. I'm a glaciologist, I've ben 10+ times in Antarctica and have published papers about it. I'm personaly monitoring many glaciers in Patagonia and Yukon for up to 12 years now, and the vast majority of them are shrinking, only rare exceptions are growing, and In Patagonia the only significan one growing (Pio XI glacier) is precisely the only one near to an active volcano, so you are wrong in multiple accounts. Sorry, but "90% of the glaciers are growing" is a blatant fallacy.  
> **username_0**: My (big) mistake.  Even though they are in an uptrend they are still in the minus,, so they are not "growing" but shrinking less. I misinterpreted the graphs at the time.. Some are growing though.  
> **username_9**: I tend to stay out of climate change topics given their inflammatory nature. I do have some skepticism points, but much appreciate good science from all sides. But my view isn't important, I'm only interested to see this/similar Qs be where inquiries/challenges can be made and people on all sides can learn with open minds. So I hope you all can try to work through the contention points in the Q wording via further edits until everyone can be somewhat comfortable, and try to minimize tangential opinions/emotional language. It does look like some progress has been made, hope that can keep up :)  
> **username_9**: I think it's fair to suggest this topic is ignored some places. The edit to wording it as a perception seems a bit heavily towards suggesting it can be discounted as an outlier opinion unfairly. Yet it's still not something you have empirical evidence to prove... so hopefully the wording is a little more friendly... I find in just about all science that words like "seems" and "I believe" are underutilized... as a meteorologist it goes miles (vs the many other tv forecasters who put things forth like "this WILL happen today"!)... openness to changing one's mind is indeed the heart of science!  
> **username_9**: In the end people have the right to downvote what they think are bad questions/questions formed on bad premises, and to provide answers indicating such. In many situations, corrections/concerns can fit in comments as they can be quickly ironed out. But indeed this isn't a good forum for debating all the fine points when at major odds, so unfortunately going back and forth over many tiers of challenges just can't get anywhere here, and that just leaves the option of speaking with votes (or creating new followups)? But hopefully we can see the question keep reflecting your core position fairly.  
> **username_2**: It seems to me that the real answer to the question as currently worded is that scientists don't mention grand solar minimums much because (1) they don't believe we are in a grand solar minimum, and (2) even if we are, the cooling effect will be insignificant compared to the heating effect of CO2.  Perhaps a lot of the problems with the question can be eliminated by asking about those two points directly - are we in a grand solar minimum as predicted by Zharkova, and if so, what impact will that have on climate change?  
> **username_0**: Mark, we can already see the impact on climate. As I mentioned 2 or 3 times in the comments here, it's snowing in very unusual places since late 2016,, like the Sahara Desert, like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc,, it just snowed in Las Vegas. I shared these events as they happened for the past 2-3 years. Last time it snowed in the Sahara it was in 1979, when we had a weak solar cycle. The 70s were colder because of that weak solar cycle, not CO2 because CO2 kept increasing. The argument that warmer climate brings more snow won't work, sorry, we should have seen this when it was warmer and we didn't.  
> **username_0**: If the UN/IPCC experts think solar activity variation has very little impact on climate and that CO2 has the most impact, this is their problem. It's not what we observed before their theory, and it's not what we're observing now. A theory must pass the test against evidence from the past. It didn't but it was pushed forth anyways. To me and to many, this is political science.. nothing to do with Good Scientific Process.  
> **username_0**: Now that we get record colds and record snows and record hail, etc, (all symptoms of a Grand Solar Minimum),, instead of declaring they were wrong, they go to ridiculous lows to keep status quo.. the Public is starting to make fun of scientists.. meaning those few scientists corrupted by a political agenda, are putting to shame all climate scientists. I think we need to clean up this mess  
> **username_0**: Looking at the figure in the question, we can see Grand Solar Minimums also have bigger cycles of ups and downs, and judging by that pattern it's safe to say the present GSM should look like the Oort Minimum, so I'm not saying ''OMG, run,, the little ice age is here!!!''. It should be a mild and short one,, but here on Earth it will not be like any of those GSMs because this time another cycle is in play: our geomagnetic field is weakening as we're probably in a Magnetic Reversal or Excursion, and this changes a few important parameters. It should swing weather into both hot and cold extremes.  
> **username_0**: As the Ozone layer is depleting at the same exponential rate as the weakening of the magnetosphere, we see an increase in UV indexes, thus extreme hot, especially in the Magnetic Anomaly zones like South Atlantic, now also South Pacific and North Africa, where the ozone is thinner most of the year. Please see here on windy.com https://www.windy.com/-Ozone-layer-ozone?ozone,16.805,19.336,3 From the month of June to August or September, those holes in the ozone close and a very big hole opens over Antarctica. If you follow the ozone layer, you will see it's very sensitive to solar activity now.  
> **username_0**: For example, when a CME impacts the magnetosphere, you will see the ozone layer deplete dramatically on the side of the impact, as if hydrogen atoms raining down at ~700km/s reach down to the ozone layer and bombard the O3 molecules to brake them and recombine to form H2O ¦:¬) and then UV indexes go extreme and sure enough it gets hot and humid as UV evaporates more water, and then sure enough more humidity traps more radiant heat and it gets more hot and humid,, but then it gets cloudy and it rains a lot so it cools back down.  
> **username_0**: CO2 is almost constant in the equation so it's irrelevant to those fluctuations. Also CO2 has nothing to do with the depletion of the ozone layer because it's heavier than air and stays in the lower atmosphere. Other gases can reach up there and deplete some ozone but they're only ''trace'' compared to what solar winds do. Anyways, so as the magnetosphere and ionosphere shrink, the upper atmosphere is being eroded by solar winds and then solar and cosmic radiations can reach lower into the atmosphere, etc. This should swing weather increasingly into both hot and cold extremes.  
> **username_0**: All this should be all over the UN/IPCC literature and models, because we monitor and observe it, and without these parameters you can't ''predict climate'' for the next century with a straight face.. I think there were efforts to keep all this out of the literature and models, and there are efforts to keep it low in the media, political stage, etc. Why? (PS: I won't take ''because IPCC thinks these phenomena aren't relevant for climate change'' for an answer.)  
> **username_4**: En fait, le plus gros problème, c'est juste que tu es complètement con. "il n’est pire sourd que celui qui ne veut pas entendre". Tu choisis juste les modèles, les données et les arguments qui t'intéressent en ignorant soigneusement tout ce qui ne colle pas à ton schéma de pensée. Va te faire soigner STP, c'est dur de faire avancer la société et la science avec des crétins pareils.  
> **username_10**: _'I won't take ''because IPCC thinks..." for an answer'_. But your headline question is asking what reason the IPCC gives for neglecting the GSM.  It doesn't matter if you or I think that their reasoning is incorrect or misguided, if that's the reasoning they give then it's a valid answer to the question you've asked.  Overall, it reads to me like you're asking a conditional "why" question by assuming, rather than establishing, that the condition is true.  And now you're refusing answers that explain how the condition is false.  I think that makes the question unanswerable.  
> **username_0**: username_10, you're technically right about the question. I woun't take "because IPCC thinks..." for an answer because they are supposed to be experts and rigurous. What they did is to look at TSI and right away dismiss GSM. Now that reality shows they were wrong, they aren't admitting it. Instead, they say "global warming is causing more snow and more cold snaps".. and that is what the media is pushing forward.. All this tells me that either these are not experts and shouldn't be taken seriously, or they didn't really "think that" but they had to do what they were paid for. Any other reasons?  
> **username_2**: I downvoted the question because you've got a good answer that you're unwilling to accept because it doesn't agree with your incorrect assumptions.  You've made multiple statements that contradict an overwhelming record of very well-supported data, yet provided no basis for the claims, other than some pictures of snow.  Clearly, you're not interested in understanding this subject.  
> **username_0**: Mark, again: the answer mentions that the IPCC do an extremely careful assessment of reconstructions and predictions, but only looking at TSI.. then, the answer says that greenhouse gasses and land use changes are greater influences to climate, but recent cooling climate trend shows that isn't true. Then it says that the IPCC's conclusions are based on the results of all scientific studies, but that is simply not true. To reach their conclusions and recommendations they need to inflate emphasis on CO2 for example (which they have stated having overestimated by over 45%, "for the greater good")  
> **username_0**: .. and to underestimate other factors like solar activity and geomagnetic field intensity, etc,, and to ignore much research in those fields.. many experts are showing how the IPCC has been cherrypicking data and it's really obvious when you analyze honestly, so saying "they don't cherrypick" isn't credible. Also, the answer says the IPCC combines all factors and indeed some factors like more greenhouse gases and more deforestation weren't present during the Maunder Minimum, but that doesn't stand against the Medieval Warm Period, neither against the recent cooling. They were wrong before even  
> **username_2**: @username_0 - Unfortunately, that's just more false assertions.  Look at global temperature data - there is no cooling trend.  Show me a reference to the "overestimated by 45%" claim.  
> **username_0**: .. trying to prove their theory, they are wrong now,,, why not admit it? You can vote how you want now, I think the answer is not satisfactory because of the above. A satisfactory answer should also explain why the media and the political stage make abstraction of GSM.. in other words, why is 97% of the Public unaware of these ongoing phenomena (Grand Solar Minimum and geoMagnetic Reversal/Excursion) knowing they are indeed significant events.. (and I won't take for an answer that "the IPCC thinks they're not" because that would mean they didn't do their homeworks)  
> **username_0**: Mark, sorry I shouldn't have wrote ''they have STATED having overestimated by 45%'' because they didn't actually state that. This is what Judith Curry and Nic Lewis found in their paper and stated. You can find the story here https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/global-warming-computer-models-co2-emissions/ And this was how Al Gore explained it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAthdZVlClI&t=209s (I chose the Ice Age Farmer video intentionally, the guy shows more discipline and honesty, and empathy for the Public,, than any of the UN/IPCC political scientists)  
> **username_0**: PLEASE don't get me wrong: I'm all against dirty energies and technologies being systematically standardized while clean alternatives being systematically sabotaged,, and also against overpopulation/massconsumerism having been systematically incentivized through church and gvt benefits, etc. I'm all against slow poisoning the Flora and Fauna with industrial wastes and repurposed industrial wastes, etc. I'm sure dirty industries are behind much of the above. I want them down too. But please use valid arguments! Sorry but the CO2 argument has failed and will keep failing because it's invalid.  
> **username_0**: I'm sure you agree that dirty industries and politicians are good friends for a long time,, right? It's no secret that politicians like to make very rich friends and then to accommodate them.. Now dirty industries certainly don't want the Public to know about GSM and geoMagnetic Excursions and stuff,, especially not their investors,,, because this would mean they are doomed real soon and the next gold is in indoor food production, and any energy/technology best suited for indoor food production/distribution, and the special conditions ahead.. oh, and in adequate housing construction.  
> **username_0**: So I think dirty porcorations have been funding the UN ''scientists'' to come up with some BS and the media to propagate it and to create as much noise as possible,, all so that they never ever mention ''Grand Solar Minimum and geoMagnetic Excursion''.. and also armies of trolls on both sides of the ''climate debate'' (science VS dirty industries),, to create more noise and to gang up un anyone who dares mention those keywords and who doesn't bend down before the Al Mighty Gore and the IPCC commandments,, and to insult, intimidate and even threaten them away. I know, I've been there so long...  
> **username_0**: So if you were worried I was a troll for dirty porcorations, I'm not. And the proof is that I'm talking about Grand Solar Minimum and geoMagnetic Reversal/Excursion, and providing proof for them. Trolls on either side don't do that.  
> **username_0**: I also want dirty industries to shut down operations and secure their infrastructures before an eventual socioeconomic SHTF.. they just want to keep pumping and make as much money as possible, blaming you,, and then when SHTF, just abandon their infrastructures at the mercy of cataclysms. They know they are doomed soon, they monitor seismic activity with all their networks and spills are multiplying at the same rate as earthquakes and volcanic activity, that are ramping up at the same rate as the magnetosphere weakening. They just don't want people to know, especially not their investors..  
> **username_0**: So my strategy is to educate the Public about GSM and gMR/E as best as possible, and to make sure all investors understand that dirty industries are doomed soon and they should divest ASAP, and invest in indoor food production/distribution, and any clean tech and energy best suited for that and for the conditions ahead. And in adequate housing.  
> **username_1**: @username_0 You might find this Q&A interesting as well: https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/q/13131/11908  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2019-02-17. Score: 79

The IPCC do mentions solar minimums and maximums, as part of extremely careful treatment they do of the reconstructions and predictions for the changes in solar irradiance. [The Assessment Report 5, Working Group 1, Chapter 8](https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf), have a whole section (~4 pages) dealing with solar irradiances.

If the IPCC don't mention grand solar maximums/minumums that often, is because the research in the area have shown that solar minimums and maximums have smaller impact in climate than other factors. Therefore, such factors deserve more attention, like Greenhouse gases or land use changes. These factors deserve more attention both because they have a greater impact on climate and because we can do something about them. When it comes to solar activity we can't do much anyway.

The work of the IPCC is to combine the research of the whole scientific community, their conclusions are not based in the result of a single study but in the combination of pretty much all of them. Some studies could be contradictory, so instead of cherry-picking what suits them, they compare and combine all the studies to have the most reliable answers and a good idea of the uncertainties. If predictions of multiple models differ a lot it means uncertainties are large. If they all give the same result, we can be a bit more confident about it.

For example, the figure 8.11 compares the reconstruction of solar irradiance between years 1750 and 2000 from six studies:

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/Boi8z.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/Boi8z.png)

You can see how the [Dalton minimum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalton_Minimum) shows up around 1810-1820, but the total solar irradiance change is rather small (less than 1 W for over a total of 1360 W).

Here some excerpts from the IPCC reports that are relevant to this question, and where solar minimums are mention and considered in the wider context of climatic forcing (text between square brackets were added by me for clarification):

Page 662:

> Satellite observations of total solar irradiance (TSI) changes from
> 1978 to 2011 show that the most recent solar cycle minimum was lower
> than the prior two. This very likely led to a small negative RF [Radiative Forcing] of
> –0.04 (–0.08 to 0.00) W m$^{–2}$ between 1986 and 2008. The best
> estimate of RF due to TSI changes representative
> for the 1750 to 2011 period is 0.05 (to 0.10) W m$^{–2}$. This is
> substantially smaller than the AR4 estimate due to the addition of the
> latest solar cycle and inconsistencies in how solar RF has been
> estimated in earlier IPCC assessments. There is very low confidence
> concerning future solar forcing estimates, but there is high
> confidence that the TSI RF variations will be much smaller than the
> projected increased forcing due to GHG during the forthcoming decades.
> {8.4.1, Figures 8.10, 8.11}

Page 690 (explicit mentions of grand solar minimums):

> **8.4.1.3 Attempts to Estimate Future Centennial Trends of Total Solar Irradiance**
>
> Cosmogenic isotope and sunspot data (Rigozo et al., 2001;
> Solanki and Krivova, 2004; Abreu et al., 2008) reveal that currently
> the Sun is in a grand activity maximum [a.k.a. **grand solar maximum**] that began about 1920 (20th
> century grand maximum). However, SC [solar cycle] 23 showed an activity decline not
> previously seen in the satellite era (McComas et al., 2008; Smith and
> Balogh, 2008; Russell et al., 2010). Most current estimations suggest
> that the forthcoming solar cycles will have lower TSI [Total Solar Irradiation] than those for
> the past 30 years (Abreu et al., 2008; Lockwood et al., 2009; Rigozo
> et al., 2010; Russell et al., 2010). Also there are indications that
> the mean magnetic field in sunspots may be diminishing on decadal
> level. A linear expansion of the current trend may indicate that of
> the order of half the sunspot activity may disappear by about 2015
> (Penn and Livingston, 2006). These studies only suggest that the Sun
> may have left the 20th century **grand [solar] maximum** and not that it is
> entering another **grand [solar] minimum**. But other works propose a **grand [solar]
> minimum** during the 21st century, estimating an RF within a range of
> -0.16 to 0.12 W m$^{–2}$ between this future minimum and the present-day TSI (Jones et al., 2012). However, much more evidence is needed and at
> present there is very low confidence concerning future solar forcing
> estimates.
>
> Nevertheless, even if there is such decrease in the solar
> activity, there is a high confidence that the TSI RF variations will
> be much smaller in magnitude than the projected increased forcing due
> to GHG (see Section 12.3.1).

Summarizing, the IPCC consider solar irradiance variations, the timing of solar minimums and maximums. However, it consider also many other factors that also affect Earth's energy budget. Then, they do predictions based on the combined effect of all these factors. In contrast, some people tend to focus on just one factor (as solar activity) and erroneously assume that it will dominate over all the others.

For the particular case of solar activity, as you can see in the cites above. The **IPCC acknowledge the possible occurrence of a solar minimum in the future, but combining all the models they conclude that there is a high confidence that its effects will be much smaller in magnitude than the projected increased forcing due greenhouse gases**.

Part of the reason your question might not be well received is because it starts from an assumption that is false: "climate experts from the UN/IPCC never mention Grand Solar Minimum". They do mention it, and if you follow the references in the IPCC you will find plenty of discussion about Dalton, Maunder and older Grand Solar Minimums. And part of that discussion is to estimate the real impact that those events can have in Earth's climate. Then the IPCC get those estimates and figure out how they interplay with the many other factors that conjugate to determine current and future Earth's climate.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: There is no mention "Grand Solar Minimum" in Chapter08. The 2 mentions of the "Maunder Minimum": one cites a study and mentions its estimates are opposite to most studies, and the other one is an estimate based on studying other distant stars.. mentions of solar cycles are all based on the 1750-to-present estimates by 4 studies and point out discrepancies, but still show a clear correlation between solar activity and TSI. The Maunder Minimum ended in 1715 and it's so convenient to cherry-pick the data starting 1750.. and with different temporal resolution like 5 or 7 years..  
> **username_0**: This study provides TSI graphs that go back to 1600 https://arxiv.org/pdf/1601.05397 and you can see why the IPCC "experts" left it out of their literature.  
> **username_0**: But anyways, TSI encompasses all the spectrum and if we look at what wavelengths from the Sun have the most heating effect here on Earth, we realize it's UV,, not infrared because the Sun is so far.. so it would be more relevant to look at UV output of the Sun during solar cycles and Grand Minimums/Maximums. Then the numbers would be more significant because they are not diluted within all the spectrum, from witch most wavelengths are irrelevant for heating effect. Cosmic ray increase affects climate also but those are particles.  
> **username_0**: IPCC acknowledging solar Minimums and Maximums (11-year cycle) is irrelevant because this question is about GRAND Solar Minimums. Also, pointing to the latest IPCC report, citing cherry-picked older papers already rendered obsolete by monitoring data is irrelevant. This answer in not satisfactory. A quick "find in text" with keywords "Grand Solar Minimum" in IPCC literature reveals "0 on 0" results. I will keep the question as it is.  
> **username_1**: @username_0 How can you say that they don't mention grand minimums and maximums? Text search is not enough: The two references to "grand minimum" in the section about the Solar irradiance obviously refer to grand solar minimums.  
> **username_2**: @username_0 - so the paper you cited in the comment clearly says the new sunspot assessments have no impact: "Using the SILSO record, global warming estimates attributable to solar variability over the last four centuries may be up to 20 % less than current estimates suggest, perhaps causing only a 0.08 °C increase rather than a possible 0.1 °C increase in global surface temperature. These differences are negligible compared to uncertainties, and either contribution to overall global warming remains much less than those due to other climate influences."  
> **username_0**: Crums.. and downgrading citing estimations instead of data. Data shows snows on the Sahara Desert every winter since December 2016. And many more that I shared almost daily for the past years... Data shows crop losses from early season or late season frost,, I even shared summer snows!. That data tells me it's here since late 2016 and when I look at IPCC "reports" and media spreading I see "global warming is causing more snow" (because Polar Vortex broken by Arctic warming..) But I know as fact that during warming periods the polar vortex shrinks and stays up there, and during cooling periods  
> **username_1**: @username_0 I made some additions in between square brackets to the last excerpt of my answer (from page 690), please read it again so it is clear where grand solar minimums and maximums are mentioned.  
> **username_3**: Re "You can see how there are significant variations of solar irradiance."  Eyeballing the graph, the variation is less than 2 W/m^2 around a 1361 W/m^2 mean.  That's about 0.15% variation, most of which is the 11 year sunspot cycle.  Long-term variations seem to be less than half the solar cycle amount, and over the 250 year period of the graph, end up pretty close to neutral.  So does that count as significant, in terms of its effect on global temperature?  I wouldn't think so.  
> **username_1**: @username_3 fair point, I changed the wording. Does it looks better now?  
> **username_6**: There are [some](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark) who claim that solar activity modulates cosmic rays which modulates cloudiness which modulates climate, but they're rarely mentioned because they're wrong.  
> **username_10**: @username_0 How could the IPCC AR5 (2013) cite Kopp et al (2016), which came out years later?  The new [CMIP6 solar forcing paper](https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-2247-2017) does cite it, and the SATIRE reconstruction used in Kopp et al is essentially cited in the AR5 as Krivova et al (2010).  
> **username_3**: @username_1: My problem wasn't so much with the wording, as with the idea that such small variations in solar irradiance could have significant effects.  
> **username_1**: @username_0 Thanks for your edit of the title. I've edited the answer to account for the change in the question. And I hope I've also clarified why they mention grand solar minimums rarely.  
> **username_0**: username_1, TSI and "low confidence" blablabla so we think GSM should not be in the models because it's "insignificant"... But documented history shows us GSMs are indeed times when most parts of the globe have up to 40% population decrease to famine, pandemics, wars.. because of cold, large hail, floods, more snow,, etc. Is that important for the Public to know? The Public pays those scientific studies and monitoring at observatories and now with satellites etc,,, with Public Funds. Yet 97% of the Public has never herd of GSM or geoMagnetic Reversal/Excursion or think it's some crazy doom theory  
> **username_0**: Sorry man, I know it seams to be a correct answer because even if they were wrong about the importance of GSM, that is still what they thought.. but it goes beyond that: I think it's impossible that ''they thought'' that, and still believe it. This can't be the real answer. Many scientists have waived flags since the beginning. Even Patrick Moore left Greenpeace because he couldn't stand the fake science,, but if it didn't go viral and wasn't on the media, the Public doesn't know about it. What the Public knows is kindergarten science, that it's their fault and they should pay taxes.  
> **username_1**: @username_0 You said: "But documented history shows us GSMs are indeed times when most parts of the globe have up to 40% population decrease to famine, pandemics, wars.. because of cold, large hail, floods, more snow,, etc" Can you provide proof of that?  
> **username_0**: The wording is good: most (majority) parts of the globe have seen population decrease.. up to 40% means anywhere from >0% to 40% and this combines deaths from famine (from crop losses), pandemics (from malnutrition and weak immunity, cold and wet conditions, mosquito and pest infestation transmitting disease, etc),, and wars for resources.  
> **username_1**: @username_0 But was is your source for saying that? Or it is just your own cherry-picking of facts?  

---

### Answer by username_11 on 2019-02-17. Score: 40

I think the main question has already been answered. But I would like to add to the fallacy that:

> History shows solar activity is the main driver of our climate, among other factors.

The Sun is undoubtedly the main source of energy for the planet and its climate. However, variations in solar activity are not the main cause of variations in climate. The main drivers are the "other factors".

Some examples of that are:

[Faint young Sun paradox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faint_young_Sun_paradox): The climate on earth has remained in the range that allows the existence of liquid water during billions of years despite large changes in the luminosity of the sun.

[Milankovitch cycles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles): The cycles that control the ice ages that have dominated the planet during the last million years are not due to changes in solar activity, but to changes in the orbit and orientation of the Earth.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Max, thanks for mentioning the Milankovitch Cycles and indeed the Orbit Eccentricity 100K-year cycle is the main driver, but also related to the amount of energy the Earth gets from the Sun through shorter or greater distance (not CO2).. Precession of the Equinoxes also shifts the seasons through its 24-26K-year cycle, and when the axis passes through angles pointing to Aquarius and Leo the magnetic field wants to flip and that causes sudden and short but quite strong climatic episodes.. the Grand Solar Minimum cycle is a small beast compared to other factors, but ongoing and worth mentioning  
> **username_2**: That's correct @username_0 - the Grand Solar Minimum is a small beast compared to other factors - most significantly greenhouse gas forcing.  
> **username_3**: @username_0: I'm not aware of any relationship between geomagnetic field reversals and the orientation of Earth's axis or its climate.  The abstract of the only paper I could find in a quick search (Doake) suggesting a correlation between reversals and climate is behind a paywall.  
> **username_12**: Another good example of drastical changes to the climated caused by "other factors"  worth mentioning could be the  [Great Oxygenation Event](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event).  
> **username_0**: James, look for "Magnetic Excursions" (semi-reversals or double reversals). They happen every 12-13K years. The last one was as we entered Leo ~12800ya, the Gothenburg Magnetic Excursion, a rapid double reversal. The one before was the Lake Mungo Magnetic Excursion, ~26Kya as we entered Aquarius, a 120° deviation (semi-reversal) that stopped and went back, in about 100 years. The one before, 40Kya as we entered Leo, was a double reversal called the Leschamp Magnetic Excursion,, each flip took some 250 years with a 450-year period between them. Etc..  
> **username_0**: Magnetic Reversals are one single flip and the electromagnetic field stays in that orientation. They are rare indeed and not cyclic. But Magnetic Excursions are semi-flips or double flips.. same process, but either uncompleted and the orientation goes back as it was,, or the process completes a 180°, stays in that orientation for a randomly short while and completes another flip to go back in the previous orientation. The actual flips are short, only 1-2 centuries and the Peak where the magnetic field is weakest, when volcanism and climate etc go crazy, is just 1 to 3 decades.  
> **username_0**: After Peak, conditions get back to normal pretty fast but with remnant glaciers to melt over 1-3 centuries depending on the severity of the event. These Reversals or Excursions are bigger monsters than Grand Solar Minimums.. But they are rare (every 12-13K years, and smaller magnetic shifts as we enter Scorpio and Taurus also) and punctuated. Grand Solar Minimum happens every ~400 years and corresponds with colder periods of 35 to 110 years. They are well documented. We know they are times of famine, pandemics, wars etc. We knew it was coming, it's cyclic. Why 97% of the Public is not aware?  

---

