Ok, you get it then we can be at solar max without any sun spots then?
Here's the thing... all that I'm interested in, in regards to this -- is the relationship to the sequence of events that causes the earth to warm up and cool down.
Now, that turns out to be sunspots, solar winds, cosmic rays and clouds... (in that sequence).
Thus, all that would matter is how strong or weak the solar winds are, in terms of the earth warming up or cooling down.
Any other thing going on with the sun would be a completely different matter and unrelated matter.
BUT, having said all this, I would have no worry about the situation, because the earth is going to be around for quite a long time from now, with a bunch of human beings still living on it, and in a civilization that they have, as they've had before in the past. That part is not going to change...
It's the "Anthropogenic Global Warming" scenario that is false and is composed of "science gone crazy" ... LOL...
The sequence is...
sunspots --> solar winds --> cosmic rays --> cloud formation
If there aren’t any sun spots then the solar wind is decreased,
I don’t think you get the article.
It is kind of like Fire, you need fuel, heat, oxygen to get to ignition.
This article is saying you basically have fuel and oxygen without the heat.
The magnetic waves pinch the plasma causing the heat that results in the sun spots.
So, you have solar max without sun spots and without the increased solar winds.
That is the reason I asked, everyone reading this is getting the magnetic flux confused with the sun spot cycle. Two totally separate things except that sun spots depend on the magnetic flux strength.