Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

shuggee

The Quiet Sun - Climatic Consequences

Recommended Posts

Please feel free to talk about the topic in this lovely fresh thread :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've copied this from the Solar Activity thread as it probably applies more to this new one.

A rudimentary search on Google brings up hundreds of articles offering theories as to why the concept of global warming is dead in the water. Granted, the vast majority of these are not peer-reviewed but it wasn't that long ago that the only literature available that supported the views of GW sceptics could be found on 'extremist' websites such as Ice Age Now (don't get me wrong, it's a good site but it is very single-minded). Now, a more balanced view is starting to get into the mainstream, and in my opinion this will, in time, turn the whole field of climate change on it's head.

As an aside, I was pondering the quiescent state of the sun and what it could mean in the medium/long term. If we are staring down the barrel of a Dalton minimum, how long before the effects are felt in the global climate? How much of a lag can we expect to see? What if we are looking at a Maunder-type minimum?

IMO, if the sun slips into a deep and prolonged minimum, we may be looking at a new LIA, and the potential forecasted consequences may be as bad as the outlandish predictions that AGW caused in the 1990's and early millenium. Even as a confirmed cold ramper, I must admit to being more than a little concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers AM - will be good to have a more focussed discussion on this and separate out the two topics so readers can choose what to read :clap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.davidarchibald.info/papers/Archibald2009E&E.pdf

Thought I'd drag this one over to here, as a more appropriate thread for it!

It'll get cold and we will end up with the weather/climate which is currently 186miles/300km to our North. Hence Bristol will have the weather currently "enjoyed" by Manchester. :pardon:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've copied this from the Solar Activity thread as it probably applies more to this new one.

A rudimentary search on Google brings up hundreds of articles offering theories as to why the concept of global warming is dead in the water. Granted, the vast majority of these are not peer-reviewed but it wasn't that long ago that the only literature available that supported the views of GW sceptics could be found on 'extremist' websites such as Ice Age Now (don't get me wrong, it's a good site but it is very single-minded). Now, a more balanced view is starting to get into the mainstream, and in my opinion this will, in time, turn the whole field of climate change on it's head.

Sorry AM have to disagree with this, completely. I fully remember 17 years ago before AGW became commonly accepted there were just as many(and more reputable) skeptic views and articles.

Comments about Scientists just starting to consider natural variations, Solar cycles etc are completely wrong, we started at this point 15-20 years ago. It was considered, included or discounted and the world moved on.

Skeptics have since become alot more vocal with less and less science and peer review and more and more articles and web chat, blogs etc.

I am not saying the science is settled far from it, climate scientists continue to look at natural processes including the solar angle constantly, again it's considered, included or discounted. Which is as it should be.

I await with avid interest the next prediction for global cooling (I've lost count of the amount of times I've hear them. It started in 2000 when we entered the La Nina and started to come down from the 1998 peak. Then moved to 2005 As the PDO started dropping and we dropped below the halfway point in the solar cycle. Then 2008-09 with the negative PDO, Solar min, La Nina, even GWO's predictions. A figure I am starting to hear now is 2012.

Put simply the decrease in values to a dalton minimum on the SI figure (a 0.1% or so drop on solar levels) is commonly predicted to decrease temperatures by -0.3C. So putting up back to roughly the 1960-1990 average.

The next question is how likely is a Dalton minimum ?.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/10/041001092000.htm

http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap02/sunspots.html

http://www.astronomynow.com/090422sun.html

http://www.larouchepac.com/node/9916

lots of stuff on the net.

im skeptical i think minimums and maximums have more of an effect than is known and very much underestmated.:pardon:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But we can look back at what happen during these maxes and mins in the past and see what happened. If we are expecting more to happen (i.e more warming or cooling) then we need to know why more warming or cooling this time and not previously.?.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest North Sea Snow Convection

Not surprisingly I agree with A-M

I am not sure how we can dismiss the potential effects of solar minimum so prematurely when the organisations that profess to be so confident about AGW being the primary forcer (based on hypothesis) have thus far failed to predict the path of the current solar minimum and have been forced to backtrack on these predictions. Also, over the short term (last decade) as we know, the IPCC have failed to predict the CO2 and heat relationship with any accuracy. Whilst one can't deny that man must make some contribution towards our climate direction, however small, the goalposts on assumed warming have moved as many times if not more than any calls on 'global cooling'.

Whilst the sun keeps doing what it does, and global temps flatline as opposed to the progressive predictions that suggested we should have kept warming by now - I think that calling a more level playing field is absolutely right. Those who profess to be staunch AGW proponents might do well to express a bit more caution.

This has all been said so many times before, and is part of the usual circular debate on here, but at the very least I believe that A-M is right that the chances of a more equal and balanced approach to the science are being forced by developments, (albeit painfully slowly and with gritted teeth) none of which are going with predictions. There have been far too many 'confident' predictions. Irrespective of any final outcome which, all of us at least agree, is very uncertain.

Livingston and Penn of course still have a jury out on their own predictions - but they have fared no worse than the 'loudest voices' and one could arguably say in the light of a deeper minima than NASA (for eg) have ever considered they are thus far doing better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are going slighlty OT here, but the model predictions for AGW use an averaged solar cycle throughout the 100 year run. (very similar to the last cycle in the 90's).

Whether we can predict what happens to the sun or not is kind of irrelavent. I can't predict when it will rain, but I can certaintly predict how much river levels will increase given 100mm of rainfall in a rivers catchment area.

This goes for the sun, however I admit the certainty of the prediction is much lower in Solar.

I am not sure this is the place to discuss flatlining temperatures, but NO data sets show flatline temperature currently IMO.

I think we can almost leave AGW out of this thread or maybe just admit there are 2 paths an AGW one of say 0.2C per decade and a non AGW one and then decide what effect say a Dalton will have and leave it to that. I appreciate it might be a pot kettle black situation. Sorry for being OT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given, that the LI is an exercise in matching solar activity to climate, I might as well repost what the LI looks like when extrapolated forward.

Here it is ...

post-5986-12518899299246_thumb.png

With no data (for the future) for volcanic, ENSO, nor ice extent, and all other things being considered, if the sunspot count is very low, even up until 2015, the LI asserts that we will still be posting above average temperatures. Of course, latency in temperature lag introduced by ENSO, or low albedo counts from sea-ice are all likely to extend this period.

I'd interpret these results firstly as (and should always be mentioned) highly experimental, and, secondly, that, according the LI, there is no cooling to average temperatures on the horizon, yet.

Perhaps a message of hope?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we can almost leave AGW out of this thread or maybe just admit there are 2 paths an AGW one of say 0.2C per decade and a non AGW one and then decide what effect say a Dalton will have and leave it to that. I appreciate it might be a pot kettle black situation. Sorry for being OT.

I agree with the sentiments of the above post insofar as it suggests that avoidance of an ‘either/or’ approach to this topic is concerned. The question surely is “whether the recent absence of sunspot activity if continued would lead to climate cooling (and other adjustments) and what level of extension to the current situation might be required to produce appreciable and long-term changes based on historical observation and extrapolation”, irrespective of other potential influences or at least accepting other potential influences as being part of our climatic status quo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure this is the place to discuss flatlining temperatures, but NO data sets show flatline temperature currently IMO.

I would agree that any sustained diminution in Solar output must eventually cause a negative forcing; and that, given enough time would produce an albedo-based positive feedback promoting further cooling...No one is dismissing it!

The difficulty is, IMO, that as yet there has been no cooling. Therefore, it cannot (yet?) be correlated to anything?? Let's see how the LI performs over the next few years??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

or better still what connections the suns cycles have on our climate patterns ie jet stream ocean circlations and el nino and la ninas cloud formations.

even now around the arctic the ice is standing steady although still well down compared to the longterm averages.

but is it a coincedence that the jet is showing a more prolonged shift down south and that northern and southern hemispheres have been having some pretty cold winters in the last few years ok where not talking deep cold of 80s but this also was during a minimum.

although the 80s minimum was not as deep as where seeing now perhapes if you took away the 90s warming and solar maximum then maybe things would be even colder now.

but this minimum by some is said to be the start of atleast a couple of decades of low activty predicted,

so whos to say over this period of time the feedback from this could have much more of an impact and cool us down even a drop of just 1c could really make a difference.:mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are going slighlty OT here, but the model predictions for AGW use an averaged solar cycle throughout the 100 year run. (very similar to the last cycle in the 90's).

Whether we can predict what happens to the sun or not is kind of irrelavent. I can't predict when it will rain, but I can certaintly predict how much river levels will increase given 100mm of rainfall in a rivers catchment area.

This goes for the sun, however I admit the certainty of the prediction is much lower in Solar.

I am not sure this is the place to discuss flatlining temperatures, but NO data sets show flatline temperature currently IMO.

I think we can almost leave AGW out of this thread or maybe just admit there are 2 paths an AGW one of say 0.2C per decade and a non AGW one and then decide what effect say a Dalton will have and leave it to that. I appreciate it might be a pot kettle black situation. Sorry for being OT.

Firstly, I largely accept what is above and secondly, I do accept that there has been warming in the 20th century and at least some of that is AGW.

However, I have two main problems with the IPCC modelling. Firstly, it's a mathmatical model. We all know from watching the GFS that if it fails to pick up a shortwave coming from Iceland at 96 hours, then the compunded error rate is geometric by the time we get 168 hours. That is the main problem - if running models for 50 years or 100 years into the future, you firstly have to have the correct data to start and secondly even a tiny error early in the modelling will result in wild errors in a very short space of time.

The second point which is much more on topic is to do with the IPCC decision to discount solar variation and to accept the levels of the 1990s to be the norm. It is widely accepted by solar scientists that the 1ast century has seen a maximum in solar output levels. Given that some of the feedback mechinisms (such as ocean warming) may take decades to come through, any drop off in solar output to normal or even grand minima levels may not be felt fully on the ground for many many years. Solar input and ocean currents and temperatures are two subjects where there is simply not enough known facts - all we have are lots of opinions and speculation.

The idea of putting giant mirrors in space to deflect solar output seems to me to be like proposing to play russian roulette.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SOLAR MINIMUM VS. GLOBAL WARMING: From 2002 to 2008, decreasing solar irradiance has countered much anthropogenic warming of Earth's surface. That's the conclusion of researchers Judith Lean (NRL) and David Rind (NASA/GISS), who have just published a new analysis of global temperatures in the Geophysical Research Letters. Lean and Rind considered four drivers of climate change: solar activity, volcanic eruptions, ENSO (El Nino), and the accumulation of greenhouse gases. The following plot shows how much each has contributed to the changing temperature of Earth's surface since 1980:

leanrind_strip.gif

Volcanic aerosols are a source of cooling; ENSO and greenhouse gases cause heating; the solar cycle can go either way. When added together, these factors can account for 76% of the variance in Earth's surface temperature over the past ~30 years, according to the analysis of Lean and Rind.

Several aspects of their model attract attention: "The warmest year on record, 1998, coincides with the 'super-El Nino' of 1997-98," points out Lean. "The ESNO is capable of producing significant spikes in the temperature record." Solar minimum has the opposite effect: "A 0.1% decrease in the sun's irradiance has counteracted some of the warming action of greenhouse gases from 2002 - 2008," she notes. "This is the reason for the well-known 'flat' temperature trend of recent years."

What's next? Ultimately, the authors say, temperatures will begin rising again as greenhouse gases accumulate and solar activity resumes with the coming of the next solar cycle. Of couse, the solar cycle could be out of whack; if solar minimum deepens and persists, no one is certain what will happen. Lean and Rind reveal their predictions for the future here.

Reference: Lean, J. L., and D. H. Rind (2009), How will Earth's surface temperature change in future decades?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L15708

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Morning peeps,

Came across this interesting paper about the interaction between Solar activity and the Earth's magnetic field and the influence the two have on climate.

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/EarthMagneticField.htm

I think it's far too simplistic to only use TSI as the measurement against which the intensity of Solar cycles impact upon climate; it cannot be take in isolation and be expected to give us an accurate picture when so many different things are influenced by the changes in geomagnetic activity.

Here are a couple more but they are much briefer in content:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/06/020607073439.htm

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mscp/ene/2009/00000020/F0020001/art00005

Lots more on the decline of the Earth's magnetic field can be found here (it's old-ish, some of the links may be dead)

http://www.netweather.tv/forum/topic/37107-gw-and-the-decline-of-the-earths-magnetic-field/page__st__68

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes we all need to keep an open mind there are so many factors which affect the earth temperature at the surface, now, and in the past.

Who is correct IPCC or those like GWO who predict a marked cooling?

somewhere between the two is probable if the weather or rather climate behaves as the actual weather does when compared to model predictions of 1 to 16 days down the line.

One thing is for sure the discussion/argument on this site and others and within the climate community will continue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As sc24 1026 hauls itself into view (and it's a biggy by the looks of things!) what happens if the cycle turns out to be as big as Hathaway predicted?

Would this mean an increase in the warming (on top of AGW)?

I mean, those folk who are keen on a quiet sun meaning global cooling must see that a bubbling sun will mean a step change upwards in the warming?

Hathaway's September update graph for sc24 shows a very steep rise in sun spot numbers from now through into 2010 and with the current strengthening Nino' would this mean a very hot 2010 in the offing? (esp. when you consider our june/ july/aug's global temps....ocean ,land and combined)smile.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As sc24 1026 hauls itself into view (and it's a biggy by the looks of things!) what happens if the cycle turns out to be as big as Hathaway predicted?

And conversely, what if it doesn't??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As sc24 1026 hauls itself into view (and it's a biggy by the looks of things!) what happens if the cycle turns out to be as big as Hathaway predicted?

Would this mean an increase in the warming (on top of AGW)?

I mean, those folk who are keen on a quiet sun meaning global cooling must see that a bubbling sun will mean a step change upwards in the warming?

Hathaway's September update graph for sc24 shows a very steep rise in sun spot numbers from now through into 2010 and with the current strengthening Nino' would this mean a very hot 2010 in the offing? (esp. when you consider our june/ july/aug's global temps....ocean ,land and combined)smile.gif

I wouldn't personally pay too much heed to the Hathaway graph - it's been changed and updated so many times. That in it's self isn't a problem but the graph updates seem only to have included a longer and longer minimum, the maximum date hasn't moved, this in turn has created a steeper and steeper curve towards max. The method he uses hasn't changed, he was wrong about the prolonged minima; if his methods aren't successful (by some measure) in predicting the scale of the minima, how can those methods be relied upon to accurately predict maximum, both timing and strength?

I think those who did predict this prolonged minima also predict a low maximum too.

What it means for climate though is anyone's guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And conversely, what if it doesn't??

Well then we'd need a thread for a 'quiet sun-climatic consequences' I reckon P.P.,......oh ,hold on , that's where we are....mellow.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×