what the ipcc initially demonstrated was that the warming observed over the second half of the 20th century could not be associated with solar activity, because they were moving in opposite directions.

that is, the temperature was increasing, while the sun was weakening. so, we couldn't be getting warmer as a result of the sun because the sun was getting colder; it would then follow that we ought to be getting colder, if not for global warming. the second part of this is equally important, but it got largely dropped by the media.

so, missed in the media's take on this was that the correlation between the sun and the climate was actually quite robust up until the year 1900, and especially broke down after the year 1980. there's this oft-repeated line - even by publishing scientists - that the ipcc disproved any connection between the sun and the climate, which is anything but the actual truth; the report actually demonstrated a very strong connection between solar output and the climate up until 1980, and then demonstrated that there had been a break in the connection, which had to be caused by something else. after ruling everything else out, it then pointed to us as the last remaining culprit.

i mean, this is the fundamental breakthrough by the ipcc - that we were interfering with the sun. and, in order to establish that we were really interfering with the sun, that we're really to blame, you had to demonstrate the historical link, first. so, a big part of the study is proving the link between the sun and the weather, not debunking it.

so, the argument in the ipcc goes as follows:

1) the earth's climate is strongly correlated with the sun from antiquity up until the middle of the 20th century. and, much effort is put into demonstrating this, because it must be shown to be true to conclude that carbon emissions are altering the climate.
2) starting around 1980, the correlation breaks.
3) after ruling out many potential causes for the break in this correlation, the last remaining answer is carbon emissions.
4) therefore, anthropogenic climate change.

but, after demonstrating that the sun was the main driver of the earth's climate for the last 6 billion years, the ipcc then forgets about it.

meanwhile, the sun has been getting colder and colder since 1985 - while we've continued to get warmer and warmer.

well, sort of.

it is in fact absolutely necessary that we answer the following question: if the earth and the sun are moving in opposite directions since 1980 because of global warming, what rates of change are required to maintain or overturn the break?

because, you have to understand the following point: if we succeed in stabilizing the atmosphere, we will once again be at the mercy of the sun. and, if the sun has crashed, we're going to crash, too.

it's ultimately a rate game. if the sun cools fast enough, it will overpower the emissions; on the other hand, if emissions skyrocket, the sun's influence wanes. everybody is using statistics to try and figure this out, but it's actually a calculus problem - we're talking about optimizing rates of change, and figuring out how curves intersect with each other. and, if you want a good model, you have to take both factors into consideration, because that is what the ipcc proved - that, in the absence of carbon emissions, the sun dominates the climate.

what the studies i've seen predict is that expected emissions rates will dominantly overpower expected decreases in solar output - that global warming will win this fight. but, what that means is that the global mean temperature will continue to increase, not that regional variation will be eliminated.

we know how the vortex works. we know it's driven by the sun. and, there is little reason to expect that the historical pattern won't reassert itself, even if it's muted.

the last error that i'll point out is the idea that these blasts of cold air are creating an overall cooling effect. it may seem extreme, but that's just because we're not used to it. the truth is that these supposedly brutal winters over the last five years are still mild compared to historical solar minimums. if the thing you're trying to prove is why the winters are getting colder, your premise is wrong - because they aren't, and you can see that once you compare minima to minima. if you plot the average winter temperatures in a city like ottawa or windsor (or moscow) going back 100 years, what you get is an increasing wave function, and you can pull out the warming trend by drawing a line with positive slope (or increasing curve) through the troughs of the wave. at solar minimum, these expanded polar vortices used to be longer and more brutal than they are now.

i'm old enough that i remember the minimum in the 90s; i'm sure you can find somebody that remembers the 70s, at least. it's a 22 year cycle, not an 11 year one. our experience with this vortex is nothing compared to theirs. they'd get this for weeks.

so, we need to ask the opposite question: why don't we have long, cold winters like we used to?

and, in that sense i will concede a different point: the reason you think it's so damned cold is because of global warming.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/5/2/024001