Have you reviewed any of the articles you have been provided? Yes or no. What was not clear?
Yes. The articles are clear. None of them suggest that a GSM was the cause of a LIA or that another LIA is likely to occur in the near future.
Would you like me to quote directly from them, so that there is less of a need for you to read?
If any of the articles support your theory that the LIA was caused by a GSM, then
yes, please.
Also, have you completely tossed out your silly ideas that solar flares, and the atmospheric events known as Carrington events, are not a huge threat to our modern world?
I never said that, so
no, I haven't tossed it out.
Are you saying that it's obvious the LIA was caused by a GSM? Yes or no.
As previously stated (apparently not understood)
We (much later) conceptually tag 1300-1800 or 1500 - 1800 whatever with LABEL. Then we look for CAUSE of LABEL.
That's not the way it works in natural systems with chaotic behavior. That's our brains trying to understand things. That's you trying to fixate on single CAUSE-->single EFFECT.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theoryhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780128045886/evidence-based-climate-scienceDo you understand the relation between cosmic rays, cloud cover, the solar wind variations and weather on Earth? I had earlier noted the CLOUD experiments at CERN, but maybe you did not see the connections? These were only speculative theories in 2010 and 2012, but the CLOUD experiments provided some definitive data. That is why I noted that you cannot disregard solar influences by focusing on TSI as only changing very slightly during the LIA. That is junk science.
What I am saying is that virtually nobody argues that the TSI change during any solar cycle, including GSM, causes significant weather or climate change on the Earth. Thus any that argue against this made-up theory have only created a straw man to knock down.
From the abstract and chapter summary noted above.
The solar irradiance was almost constant during the Maunder minimum and about 0.24% (or about 0.82 W m−2) lower than the present value (see Panel (a) in Fig. 5), but CR intensity and air surface temperature varied in a similar manner – see above sections; with increasing CR intensity there was a decrease in air surface temperature (see Panels (b) and (c) in Fig. 5). The highest level of CR intensity was in 1690–1700, which corresponds to the minimum of air surface temperature [49] and also to the coldest decade (1690–1700).
...It is well known that many internal and external factors influencing the climate are unstable, for example, decreasing the Earth's temperature leads to an increase of snow and the decreasing of the solar energy input into the system leads to a further decrease in the Earth's temperature. From this it follows that even energetically small factors may have a major influence on climate change. From our point of view, cosmic rays and cosmic dust, through their influence on cloudiness, are important factors in understanding climate.The simple fact is that the creation of a 500 year more less period of cold requires an energy balance to accommodate that reality. The only way that can be accomplished is the aggregate joules of heat on the Earth are less than in "normal times."
Sunspots are not a cause, but a visual symptom of tremendous changes in the Sun, internally. Cosmic rays are particles, each single one with an energy about equal to a hardball thrown by a professional player. Clouds exist only because nucleation media in the atmosphere promotes them.
....
Also, have you completely tossed out your silly ideas that solar flares, and the atmospheric events known as Carrington events, are not a huge threat to our modern world?
I never said that, so
no, I haven't tossed it out.
That's nice, but not relevant to the physical reality of these events, and the known effects of major EMF.
https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-what-would-happen-if-solar-storm-wiped-out-technology-geomagnetic-carrington-event-coronal-mass-ejectionIt sounds like something out of a disaster movie, but it's not the stuff of fiction. Conservative estimates suggest we could be looking at up to US$2 trillion of damage in the first year of such a calamity, with a recovery effort that could take a decade for the world to pull off.
On the more extreme side, others say US$20 trillion is a more reasonable figure – an inevitable damage bill that should perhaps make us reassess the risk factors of space-borne destruction.
"In terms of risk from the sky, most of the attention in the past was dedicated to asteroids," astrophysicist Abraham Loeb from Harvard University explained to Universe Today last year.
"But a century ago, there was not much technological infrastructure around, and technology is growing exponentially. Therefore, the damage is highly asymmetric between the past and future."