One of the theories behind climate change is that it’s down to the sun. Sunspot activity is currently at a low and have been for a little while.
Will a short spell of such inactivity allow us to test the solar theory, or would we require a full cycle or more - a Maunder or Dalton minimum? For instance, in the immediate term, if the Northern Hemisphere has a cold winter and there remains a paucity of sunspots, will this lend the solar theory credence?
Perhaps the relative lack of hurricanes these past two years may be relevant.
It seems unlikely that one season would provide sufficient evidence to actually test any theory related to global warming. Climate is highly variable and there are large portions of the Earth’s climate that are not understood. That’s why it’s taken decades (perhaps 30 or so years of the current “short-term” warming trend) to get to a general understanding that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have a significant impact on climate. One cold winter is interesting, but insufficient in and of itself to be convincing. Many cold winters associated with low sunspot numbers would provide much better evidence for a link to sunspots.
If hurricane numbers could be convincingly linked to either anthropogenic or sunspot warming theories, yes. However, I am not aware of a strong link to either. Modeling seems to predict stronger hurricanes with warming (regardless of the cause of the warming,) but there’s not a lot of evidence that more hurricanes should occur (I just finished reading Storm World) even though that idea has been floated in the popular press.
It seems like there was a thread around here recently about the 2007 hurricane season, but I can’t find it on the search function. Anyone else know where it might be?