Science thrives on uncertainty. Science’s objective is to become more certain about the world and universe around us. It is when we are fairly certain about a topic that we start working on explaining the nuances of the science. For example, we are exploring the ideas of dark matter and dark energy in order to explain two unexpected nuances in celestial mechanics.

When the science is settled, however, then it is time to stop funding further research in order to concentrate on other scientific areas, those that still have uncertainty or where the nuances need explanation.

Hmm. Could someone please explain again (I keep forgetting) why we still fund climate science even though the science is settled, the consensus agrees, all debate is over, and there are calls for skeptics to be shunned, banned, re-educated, imprisoned, or executed?

I’m so glad that there are still scientific areas that still have some uncertainty, unlike climate science.

Suppose every 11 or so years the a chaotic system in the sun is provoked by the current planetary alignment, and the solar cycle is set in motion until the next quiet period, when a new stimulus by the planets weighs in. Meaning each cycle is a stand-alone phenomenon, and the dice are thrown every 11 years to determine the general character of the next. Several flat cycles in a row is happenstance. The consequences, as Bob often suggests, are still just as real.

A bit less certain and more suspenseful than when I wrote about the phenomenon nearly a decade ago: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2010/09/say-goodbye-sunspots

BSJ: It is no visible sunspots for decades. With today’s instrumentation, we will certainly detect evidence of faint sunspots during the next grand minimum, but they will be very faint and rare.

During the last grand minimum in the 1600s no sunspots were recorded, but recent research has culled out evidence that a few faint spots had occurred, but were undetectable at the time.