How will Solar Minimum affect weather and climate Take 2?

[virtualsphere]

3 minutes ago, JeffC said:

Have you read it? Conclusion?

SC25 likely to be slightly weaker than the current cycle - the authors evaluated the predictions previously made using a similar model in 2016 and were happy that observations have been in line with those predicted.  They also ran simulations which indicate that the current weak cycle is not isolated but the first in a "modern Gleissburg minimum" (a 90 - 100 year cycle observed in various datasets, including those going back to 450AD)  

As for further in the future...

Quote

Unfortunately, we will need to wait another 10-15 years before we will know if the Sun will go into a deeper minimum state (e.g. the Dalton or Maunder minima, or somewhere in between) or if it will recover as it did following the last Gleissberg minimum.

 

[JeffC]

5 minutes ago, virtualsphere said:

SC25 likely to be slightly weaker than the current cycle - the authors evaluated the predictions previously made using a similar model in 2016 and were happy that observations have been in line with those predicted.  They also ran simulations which indicate that the current weak cycle is not isolated but the first in a "modern Gleissburg minimum" (a 90 - 100 year cycle observed in various datasets, including those going back to 450AD)  

As for further in the future...

 

Cheers, as expected then. Bring it on!

[Snowyowl9]

Sunspot Activity is At Record Low Nearly Non Existent- Cold Coming.

http://pennyforyourthoughts2.blogspot.com/2018/11/sunspot-activity-is-at-record-low.html

This is going to affect us all.
From a variety of sources. Some obscure. Some better known. What is interesting is the msm/5 eyes media isn't paying a whole lot of attention to this..... Could it be that there is a concerted effort to hide/obscure the FACT the SUN affects our well being a whole lot more then the AGW cult wants to acknowledge.

[Devonian]

It's been very mild here in the UK for weeks - and the year so far (to October) in the CET area is +1C above normal.

Is it the case that only when the weather goes cold at solar minimum that it's caused by the solar minimum?

 

 

 

[Rambo]

44 minutes ago, Devonian said:

It's been very mild here in the UK for weeks - and the year so far (to October) in the CET area is +1C above normal.

Is it the case that only when the weather goes cold at solar minimum that it's caused by the solar minimum?

 

 

 

Lol, no....solar affects can cause warmer than average weather to occur as well, you should know that. 

The media (and certain "academics") blamed the hot weather in Europe this year on AGW, so its swings and roundabouts regarding your quote above!

[Devonian]

30 minutes ago, Rambo said:

Lol, no....solar affects can cause warmer than average weather to occur as well, you should know that. 

The media (and certain "academics") blamed the hot weather in Europe this year on AGW, so its swings and roundabouts regarding your quote above!

There's a definite 'heads I win, tails you lose' feel to your post.

Anyway, it seems if we get a cold winter it'll be because of the solar minimum and if we don't...it'll be because of the solar minimum.

[jonboy]

15 minutes ago, Devonian said:

There's a definite 'heads I win, tails you lose' feel to your post.

Anyway, it seems if we get a cold winter it'll be because of the solar minimum and if we don't...it'll be because of the solar minimum.

Solar minimum does not mean that you can't get hot weather or very hot weather. If anything it encourages more extremes/defined season's. We are into a deep minimum not seen for probably 200 years so well outside any modern measurement regime. As usual you believe god CO2 is the master of all. Lets see what happens over the next years as the solar lag catches up and takes effect

[Rambo]

1 hour ago, Devonian said:

There's a definite 'heads I win, tails you lose' feel to your post.

Anyway, it seems if we get a cold winter it'll be because of the solar minimum and if we don't...it'll be because of the solar minimum.

You dun arf makes things out of nothing!

Once again, your post falls into my sings and roundabouts point. Major flooding, droughts, and most extreme weather events seem to get blamed on AGW these days, BUT, there's plenty of evidence to suggest they "can" be caused by extremely low solar cycles. There's not enough evidence either way, so the only true proof is time!

[BornFromTheVoid]

Hey folks. Seeing as this is supposed to be a science based discussion - if you want to make definitive statements about how rare the current minimum is, or what alterations it might make to weather pattern, then be prepared to have those statements questioned, as is completely reasonable and normal in a forum setting.
In addition, be prepared to back your statements up with evidence, especially if questioned. Keep in mind, this section of the forum is titled: "Climate Change - The Science".

[JeffC]

1 hour ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

Hey folks. Seeing as this is supposed to be a science based discussion - if you want to make definitive statements about how rare the current minimum is, or what alterations it might make to weather pattern, then be prepared to have those statements questioned, as is completely reasonable and normal in a forum setting.
In addition, be prepared to back your statements up with evidence, especially if questioned. Keep in mind, this section of the forum is titled: "Climate Change - The Science".

Agreed. That's why i always finish a statement with a question mark!  ?

[Rambo]

1 hour ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

Hey folks. Seeing as this is supposed to be a science based discussion - if you want to make definitive statements about how rare the current minimum is, or what alterations it might make to weather pattern, then be prepared to have those statements questioned, as is completely reasonable and normal in a forum setting.
In addition, be prepared to back your statements up with evidence, especially if questioned. Keep in mind, this section of the forum is titled: "Climate Change - The Science".

As long as that applies equally across the board, then thats fair enough....

Although as you said, "the effects on the weather is very much an area of uncertainty and debate", so without solid evidence either way, it does mean there's going to be far more debate rather than proven evidence.

[jonboy]

26 minutes ago, JeffC said:

Agreed. That's why i always finish a statement with a question mark!  ?

In an area little understood as the research has yet to be completed or carried out relying purely on known science might just put you in the flat earth bracket. We must remember some greats were castigated for saying the earth was round for saying the planets rotated around the sun. Not all science is known thats why i have an open mind!!!

[inghams85]

1 hour ago, jonboy said:

In an area little understood as the research has yet to be completed or carried out relying purely on known science might just put you in the flat earth bracket. We must remember some greats were castigated for saying the earth was round for saying the planets rotated around the sun. Not all science is known thats why i have an open mind!!!

We'll put. I would say though some of your statements are posted with too much confidence or certainty on this subject considering the lack of scientific proof. Your language should always reflect this or it just comes across as misleading

[SteveB]

Maybe we can have a science based thread for climate change etc and a thread for non science based. Then we shouldn't have to bicker or feel silly for posting what you think, without being told to back it up with science. 

[JeffC]

1 hour ago, SteveB said:

Maybe we can have a science based thread for climate change etc and a thread for non science based. Then we shouldn't have to bicker or feel silly for posting what you think, without being told to back it up with science. 

Maybe, or if you have a theory which is a hunch you can always explain it pragmatically and ask for someone who's more in the know to either back it up with explanation or explain why it's not like that and what is the better explanation? 

[SteveB]

11 minutes ago, JeffC said:

Maybe, or if you have a theory which is a hunch you can always explain it pragmatically and ask for someone who's more in the know to either back it up with explanation or explain why it's not like that and what is the better explanation? 

i see what your saying, but the "scientists in here aren't interested in hunches or non science backed papers views or opinions, so it will always get knocked down.

If there was two threads, the scientists can continue with there proven man made climate change discussions, and the other thread can be for the non science stuff which is frequently re-buffed.

There would be a lot less arguing, and a much more friendly discussion in each thread.

[Devonian]

13 hours ago, jonboy said:

Solar minimum does not mean that you can't get hot weather or very hot weather. If anything it encourages more extremes/defined season's. We are into a deep minimum not seen for probably 200 years so well outside any modern measurement regime. As usual you believe god CO2 is the master of all. Lets see what happens over the next years as the solar lag catches up and takes effect

No, I've never said that and it grossly misrepresents what I think

Nearly all of the energy powering the atmosphere, weather and climate comes from the Sun. Without the Sun the Earth would be a rock at a temperature near absolute zero. The Sun warms up the Earth by several hundred degrees, the greenhouse effect several tens of degrees and the anthro effect perhaps a few degrees.

What I do also think is that only the anthro effect is materially changing atm.

 

Edited November 15, 2018 by Devonian

[JeffC]

27 minutes ago, SteveB said:

i see what your saying, but the "scientists in here aren't interested in hunches or non science backed papers views or opinions, so it will always get knocked down.

If there was two threads, the scientists can continue with there proven man made climate change discussions, and the other thread can be for the non science stuff which is frequently re-buffed.

There would be a lot less arguing, and a much more friendly discussion in each thread.

Possibly but this isn't an AGW thread, it's about the effects of solar minimum on the weather and climate... 

Sure, if AGW is a phenomenon, and I'm not debating one way or another, interaction with that is inevitable, either accelerating or decelerating that progress, but this isn't the right thread to discuss purely AGW... 

[SteveB]

But they are intertwined, so the scientists will rubbish any views that aren't science backed.

It would be nice to have a discussion with like minded people on here without being put down by people who feel they are more knowledgeable in the subjects .

[Paul]

I'm confused, what you seem to be requesting @SteveB is a thread where people can disagree with proven science based on hunches and not have anyone present evidence which disproves that hunch? Why would that be a good thing?

Why do you feel that you're being 'put down', when all that's happening is that you're presenting a view with no evidence, and those who have more knowledge are showing evidence which disagrees? At some point, when a mountain of evidence points in one direction, hunches backed up with nothing can't be given their own place to be discussed without any sort of evidence or science based elements to it. That's just a recipe to mislead those who want to learn, and an echo chamber for those who don't want science and evidence to get in the way of whatever it is they want to believe. 

Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with asking questions, giving views etc based on hunches, and finding out whether there is any evidence to support those hunches, etc. But I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that, when presented with answers to questions, and science based evidence to back those answers up, that it's taken on board and accepted. Otherwise, you end up with a never ended circular debate where evidence apparently counts for nothing when it comes to some of the participants, and nothing good can come of that.

[Methuselah]

As far as I understand it, the Grand Solar Minimum is thought to (via interactions in the upper atmosphere related to UV radiation?) cause the jet stream to run a meandering path, leading to blocked patterns and an increased likelihood of seasonal extremes? The Arctic Amplification (the observable fact that - for whatever reason - the Arctic is warming at an accelerated rate, with respect to the rest of the planet) is also thought to affect the jet, in the aforementioned way? 

The problem, when two separate mechanisms interact in precisely the same way, ought to be obvious: how does separate one from t'other?

[SteveB]

55 minutes ago, Paul said:

I'm confused, what you seem to be requesting @SteveB is a thread where people can disagree with proven science based on hunches and not have anyone present evidence which disproves that hunch? Why would that be a good thing?

Why do you feel that you're being 'put down', when all that's happening is that you're presenting a view with no evidence, and those who have more knowledge are showing evidence which disagrees? At some point, when a mountain of evidence points in one direction, hunches backed up with nothing can't be given their own place to be discussed without any sort of evidence or science based elements to it. That's just a recipe to mislead those who want to learn, and an echo chamber for those who don't want science and evidence to get in the way of whatever it is they want to believe. 

Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with asking questions, giving views etc based on hunches, and finding out whether there is any evidence to support those hunches, etc. But I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that, when presented with answers to questions, and science based evidence to back those answers up, that it's taken on board and accepted. Otherwise, you end up with a never ended circular debate where evidence apparently counts for nothing when it comes to some of the participants, and nothing good can come of that.

No need to be confused Paul, it's a simple request for two separate threads so the non science based discussions about climate change can flow freely without be derailed by yours & others continual science based facts. And of course you and your fellow scientists can freely discuss man made climate change with proven science to your hearts content without the noise of the likes of me and others derailing it.

 

Fairly simple really....

Edited November 15, 2018 by SteveB

[Paul]

This is a science based forum area, and it's a science based subject, so it's not the place for those who want to ignore that side of things, I'm afraid. 

[Methuselah]

39 minutes ago, SteveB said:

No need to be confused Paul, it's a simple request for two separate threads so the non science based discussions about climate change can flow freely without be derailed by yours & others continual science based facts. And of course you and your fellow scientists can freely discuss man made climate change with proven science to your hearts content without the noise of the likes of me and others derailing it.

Fairly simple really....

You do realise that the science is freely available to anyone who wants to know, Steve?

[BornFromTheVoid]

58 minutes ago, SteveB said:

No need to be confused Paul, it's a simple request for two separate threads so the non science based discussions about climate change can flow freely without be derailed by yours & others continual science based facts. And of course you and your fellow scientists can freely discuss man made climate change with proven science to your hearts content without the noise of the likes of me and others derailing it.

 

Fairly simple really....

There are plenty of anti-science and self proclaimed "climate sceptic" websites out there. The comment sections or related forums would be perfectly suited to the type of discussions you appear to want. I won't link to any examples here but they should be easy to discover with a quick google search.