How will Solar Minimum affect weather and climate Take 2?

[SteveB]

2 hours ago, jethro said:

Cooling...…..I'm not aware that a quiet Sun is supposed to induce cooling, especially on a global scale. From what I've read, most of the impacts were 'local' weather impacts (for local, I mean hemisphere). The Northern hemisphere was particularly affected in previous deep minimums, especially the Maunder. A quiet Sun changes the weather patterns, a meandering jet stream becomes common place instead of just barrelling across the Atlantic, where it meanders to though is still variable. Extended periods of blocked weather become more common place, the summer we've just had may be just a coincidence, or it may be a prime example - no proof either way at the mo. My basic understanding of meteorology (and it is basic so this may be gibberish) if we have a flood of Artic air heading south in our direction, then something must have headed north, in order to force the cold south. So if it's warm high pressure heading north, and cold air heading south, the net change in temperature on a global scale won't change, it'll merely be re-distributed. Or am I missing something here?

You have to question how much evidence for cooling on a global scale they had back in the Maunder minimum.

Much of the Southern hemisphere was barely explored, let alone populated with people taking detailed weather observations. So it shouldn't come as any surprise that the Northern hemisphere has more data for back then.

It does still amaze me how we compare global temperatures now to what was recorded 40-50yrs ago, let alone 200+yrs ago. It's like comparing an abacus to a super computer.    

[Methuselah]

9 minutes ago, SteveB said:

You have to question how much evidence for cooling on a global scale they had back in the Maunder minimum.

Much of the Southern hemisphere was barely explored, let alone populated with people taking detailed weather observations. So it shouldn't come as any surprise that the Northern hemisphere has more data for back then.

It does still amaze me how we compare global temperatures now to what was recorded 40-50yrs ago, let alone 200+yrs ago. It's like comparing an abacus to a super computer.    

And what would that kind of logic do to the so-called Medieval Warm Period, Steve?

Personally, I have no quibble with the idea that a cooling sun would (all other things remaining equal) lead to a cooling Earth - however minuscule the degree... That said, Earth is currently warming, so any realistic analysis of trends must take the reality of this warming into consideration?

The sun as the main driver, of climate change, simply does not stack up...

[BornFromTheVoid]

31 minutes ago, SteveB said:

You have to question how much evidence for cooling on a global scale they had back in the Maunder minimum.

Much of the Southern hemisphere was barely explored, let alone populated with people taking detailed weather observations. So it shouldn't come as any surprise that the Northern hemisphere has more data for back then.

It does still amaze me how we compare global temperatures now to what was recorded 40-50yrs ago, let alone 200+yrs ago. It's like comparing an abacus to a super computer.    

The error ranges are larger the further back you go, but it is possible to reconstruct temperatures variations through the use of proxy data sets (such as ocean sediments, ice cores, tree rings, etc) A singular reconstructions can't say a whole lot, beyond being a small piece of evidence. However, using multiple reconstructions from a variety of sources, from different researchers using different techniques across the planet, you start to build up a robust picture of what was happening.

For example, you could start off with the person most villified by the climate change contrarians, Michael Mann, and the work him and his colleagues did back in the 90s for the northern hemisphere

Large error ranges, but a clear trend. It's good data, but needs support from others attempting to reconstruct global temperaures.

Fast forward to 2008, and you have numerous similar studies all in agreement with each other.

Good agreement, but still just the northern hemisphere, what about global?

 

It's all a case of building up evidence over time. At this stage, we are relatively certain of the trends in global temperatures over the last few thosands years, with a reasonable idea of the absolute accuracy.

EDIT: You can go back further still if you like, and start to see the Milankovitch cycles induced global cooling that was occurring before the industrial revolution


Seems to me like the LIA was more a resumption of the general temperature trend after the MWP blip!

Edited November 23, 2018 by BornFromTheVoid

[SteveB]

2 hours ago, Ed Stone said:

And what would that kind of logic do to the so-called Medieval Warm Period, Steve?

Personally, I have no quibble with the idea that a cooling sun would (all other things remaining equal) lead to a cooling Earth - however minuscule the degree... That said, Earth is currently warming, so any realistic analysis of trends must take the reality of this warming into consideration?

The sun as the main driver, of climate change, simply does not stack up...

We know it warmed Ed, but do you know exactly by how much... 1c, 1.2c, 1.8c, 2.2c, 3.6c...... we certainly know now how much we are exactly warming by  

Edited November 23, 2018 by SteveB

[SteveB]

2 hours ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

The error ranges are larger the further back you go, but it is possible to reconstruct temperatures variations through the use of proxy data sets (such as ocean sediments, ice cores, tree rings, etc) A singular reconstructions can't say a whole lot, beyond being a small piece of evidence. However, using multiple reconstructions from a variety of sources, from different researchers using different techniques across the planet, you start to build up a robust picture of what was happening.

For example, you could start off with the person most villified by the climate change contrarians, Michael Mann, and the work him and his colleagues did back in the 90s for the northern hemisphere

Large error ranges, but a clear trend. It's good data, but needs support from others attempting to reconstruct global temperaures.

Fast forward to 2008, and you have numerous similar studies all in agreement with each other.

Good agreement, but still just the northern hemisphere, what about global?

 

It's all a case of building up evidence over time. At this stage, we are relatively certain of the trends in global temperatures over the last few thosands years, with a reasonable idea of the absolute accuracy.

EDIT: You can go back further still if you like, and start to see the Milankovitch cycles induced global cooling that was occurring before the industrial revolution


Seems to me like the LIA was more a resumption of the general temperature trend after the MWP blip!

Satellites & modern thermometers  are a little more accurate than tree rings and ocean sediments.

[BornFromTheVoid]

5 minutes ago, SteveB said:

Satellites & modern thermometers  are a little more accurate than tree rings and ocean sediments.

Well, yeah. My comment was about the error ranges and why you need lots of data sets supporting each other to gain a robust idea of historic temperatures and variability.
Also, satellite based measurements are like a form of proxy measurement too and have have much more disagreement between their data sets than ground based measurements.

[jonboy]

We should also consider what the baseline temperature that is used to say we are x above pre industry times as I believe this was just after the Dalton minimum which would make it a cool base to start with!!!

[BornFromTheVoid]

16 minutes ago, jonboy said:

We should also consider what the baseline temperature that is used to say we are x above pre industry times as I believe this was just after the Dalton minimum which would make it a cool base to start with!!!

The usual "pre-industrial" baseline is 1851-1900, I think. It's not ideal, and some would rather an earlier one, but that's what most studies use.
Before present, which is used in some paleo studies, is usually 1950.

[jethro]

4 hours ago, SteveB said:

You have to question how much evidence for cooling on a global scale they had back in the Maunder minimum.

Much of the Southern hemisphere was barely explored, let alone populated with people taking detailed weather observations. So it shouldn't come as any surprise that the Northern hemisphere has more data for back then.

It does still amaze me how we compare global temperatures now to what was recorded 40-50yrs ago, let alone 200+yrs ago. It's like comparing an abacus to a super computer.    

I grant you Antarctica was unpopulated, but as for the rest, of course it was. Did they take thermometer readings and record them to a large extent? Well, did we? Detailed weather observations on the other hand are a completely different matter, the general population the world over relied on agriculture, they had to feed themselves, no popping down to the shop. Weather was enormously important, more so than today. If you take for example, Aboriginal tribes in Australia, their heritage of everything, including weather is recorded, just not in the file filling form we recognise as record keeping

Big changes in weather the world over are recorded in history because they had the potential to cause devastating crop failures and wide scale famine.

[SteveB]

1 hour ago, jethro said:

I grant you Antarctica was unpopulated, but as for the rest, of course it was. Did they take thermometer readings and record them to a large extent? Well, did we? Detailed weather observations on the other hand are a completely different matter, the general population the world over relied on agriculture, they had to feed themselves, no popping down to the shop. Weather was enormously important, more so than today. If you take for example, Aboriginal tribes in Australia, their heritage of everything, including weather is recorded, just not in the file filling form we recognise as record keeping

Big changes in weather the world over are recorded in history because they had the potential to cause devastating crop failures and wide scale famine.

Yeah I see what your saying, but how detailed were these records. I bet it was no more than " it was warmer, colder, drier, wetter than the previous season or year, and only for their locale. I pretty sure, an Australian aboriginal had no idea what the weather was like in new Zealand, let alone the Artic. But yet, today right now I can tell you that the Artic is warmer than it was 10yrs ago and by how many degrees to. I'm also fairly sure a sailer back in the 1700 or 1800's could tell you whether the temp is warmer or cooler than someone who sailed the same route, but not by what temperature, and if he could, certainly not down to accuracy we can today. Weather records pre satalite era were at best observations for probably 3rd of the planet. 

Edited November 23, 2018 by SteveB

[jethro]

2 minutes ago, SteveB said:

Yeah I see what your saying, but how detailed were these records. I bet it was no more than " it was warmer, colder, drier, wetter than the previous season or year, and only for their locale. I pretty sure, an Australian aboriginal had no idea what the weather was like in new Zealand, let alone the Artic. But yet, today right now I can tell you that the Artic is warmer than it was 10yrs ago and by how many degrees to. I'm also fairly sure a sailer back in the 1700 or 1800's could tell you whether the temp is warmer or cooler than someone who sailed the same route, but not by what temperature, and if he could, certainly not down to accuracy we can today. Weather records pre satalite era were at best observations for probably 3rd of the planet. 

But if you're doing research today then all you need is to study all those records, folk in Australia didn't need to know what was happening in the Artic. Makes no difference whether you personally know how warm it is in the Arctic when it comes to records, does it?

I guess if you want an absolutely accurate measurement then you can only have christmas pudding records, but that's kind of useless for this topic. We have no accurate measurements for the Maunder, we have observational weather records, we have historical events, but no satellites. Do we then ignore that era? We have proxy records, do we ignore those too? When trying to estimate/gauge/second guess what a deep solar minimum may do to our climate and weather, globally, nationally, hemi spherically, I suggest we have to look back at all records if we are to try to decipher what possible impacts it may have. Otherwise this thread and the topic would just be random ideas based on hunches, you've only got to look at the model thread when there's a glimmer of cold weather around to see how speculative that approach can be.

[SteveB]

24 minutes ago, jethro said:

But if you're doing research today then all you need is to study all those records, folk in Australia didn't need to know what was happening in the Artic. Makes no difference whether you personally know how warm it is in the Arctic when it comes to records, does it?

I guess if you want an absolutely accurate measurement then you can only have christmas pudding records, but that's kind of useless for this topic. We have no accurate measurements for the Maunder, we have observational weather records, we have historical events, but no satellites. Do we then ignore that era? We have proxy records, do we ignore those too? When trying to estimate/gauge/second guess what a deep solar minimum may do to our climate and weather, globally, nationally, hemi spherically, I suggest we have to look back at all records if we are to try to decipher what possible impacts it may have. Otherwise this thread and the topic would just be random ideas based on hunches, you've only got to look at the model thread when there's a glimmer of cold weather around to see how speculative that approach can be.

The only way you can compare present day weather to old historical weather records is to record them in the same way they did, then we can make a fair comparison to what's happening now to what was recorded /observed back then. If we choose to use modern day equipment to record data, then we should only start records from when such equipment started to be used.

[BornFromTheVoid]

9 minutes ago, SteveB said:

The only way you can compare present day weather to old historical weather records is to record them in the same way they did, then we can make a fair comparison to what's happening now to what was recorded /observed back then. If we choose to use modern day equipment to record data, then we should only start records from when such equipment started to be used.

It's fine, and accepted practise, to include other means of recording temperatures from the past and compare with today, so long as you include the error ranges. Just using written subjective observations is quite a narrow approach but it can be a useful complimentary data set to include with other more objective proxy measurements.

[SteveB]

I have an issue with these error ranges, just how do you go about setting them. 

[Devonian]

1 hour ago, SteveB said:

The only way you can compare present day weather to old historical weather records is to record them in the same way they did, then we can make a fair comparison to what's happening now to what was recorded /observed back then. If we choose to use modern day equipment to record data, then we should only start records from when such equipment started to be used.

On that basis we can't say there were ices ages...

But, we CAN say there were ice ages on the basis of the proxy evidence - in this case the landforms, the bolder clays, loess, pollens and the rest.

So, if we can say there were  ice ages on the basis of proxy evidence (not thermometers, no many about then) why do you say we can't we do the same with temperature?

[SteveB]

Don't understand what you mean. I was comparing like for like. Current weather data, can't be compared to historical data. We know there is ice loss in the artic compared to 20yrs ago, we can even now what the thickness of the ice is. And this is not just in one part of the artic, it's for the whole of the artic. That data was not available 50yrs ago, let alone 200yrs ago. I can't see how proxy evidence can compete with the derth off data we have at our finger tips today. It's like comparing a modern day warship with the Mary Rose.... They were both built for warfare, buts that's were the similarities end. 

Edited November 23, 2018 by SteveB

[jethro]

1 hour ago, SteveB said:

The only way you can compare present day weather to old historical weather records is to record them in the same way they did, then we can make a fair comparison to what's happening now to what was recorded /observed back then. If we choose to use modern day equipment to record data, then we should only start records from when such equipment started to be used.

With respect, that's just silly.

[BornFromTheVoid]

16 minutes ago, SteveB said:

I have an issue with these error ranges, just how do you go about setting them. 

Comparisons with day to day weather is tricky, but for climate it's all very useful. I'll try give a very general example.
Lets say you drill a core in a lake somewhere, doesn't matter where. You date the layers in the core using, lets say, carbon isotopes which are accurate to about 80 years, (Other methods can be more or less accurate, but it depends on the samples you have and the time frames you're looking at which is best to use.)
So within these layers, you could examine the pollen. The types and quantities of pollen tell you about, mostly, the local vegetation. As we know, vegetation varies based on climate. Some species are stable within a particular temperature range which is useful for averages, others can occur in blooms, telling you about specific weather/climate events. 
So lets say you date part of a core, it's 10,000 years old and you find lots of pollen from a plant that tends to appear in climates with average temperatures of 10-15C. That's your first error range - 10,000 years ago, at location X, the annual temperature was between 10-15C each year. A pretty big range, but you have to start somewhere.
Then someone else examines the same core and find pollen from a species that prefers temperatures of 7-12C. So if you think of the 2 species being part of a Venn Diagram of their ideal temperatures, they overlap in the 10-12C range. This then becomes your new error range - 10,000 years ago at location X the temperature was between 10 and 12C on average.
You can keep adding to that and improving things. Some species might die out suddenly as seasonal frosts appear, while new ones will fill the niche. Some might disappear when a particular annual or seasonal temperature threshold is breached. The lake might be strongly affected by seasonal freezing, producing layers that vary on a seasonal basis, so you can be even more accurate with your trends and dating (and also use that to estimate how long the lake stayed frozen and thus more temperature info).
All these things will contribute to reducing your error margins. And that's just a snippet on palynology from someone who's never worked in that area (but has several friends and colleagues that do). There are loads of other proxy data sets too, from oxygen isotopes, to speleothems, and loads more. The more you add, the more info you can get.
 

These things can even tell you about the general atmospheric circulation patterns. Using lakes and pollen again, variations in the abundance of non-native pollen can tell you a lot about the dominant wind patterns. For example, if you have a lake in Austria, and you see in increase in pollen from Scandinavia, that would indicated more northerly winds. If you see an increase in pollen from the Mediterranean or North Africa, that would indicate an increase in southerly winds. In Europe, these variations are often tied with the dominant phases of the NAO, and so can allow you to track past variations in the atmospheric circulation of the north Atlantic. 

Many scientific institutions have examples and explanations on their websites, while wikipedia is also a great resource. There plenty of data out there for anyone interested in understanding proxy data a bit more.

[jethro]

3 minutes ago, SteveB said:

Don't understand what you mean. I was comparing like for like. Current weather data, can't be compared to historical data. We know there is ice loss in the artic compared to 20yrs ago, we can even now what the thickness of the ice is. And this is not just in one part of the artic, it's for the whole of the artic. That data was not available 50yrs ago, let alone 200yrs ago. I can't see how proxy evidence can compete with the derth off data we have at our finger tips today. It's like comparing a modern day warship with the Mary Rose.... They were both built for warfare, buts that's were the similarities end. 

It's not a competition between proxy evidence and what we measure today. As BFTV says, calculated margins of error are included and accounted for.

What would you suggest as an alternative to measuring and studying the past, in order to make sense of today or put today into context/perspective of measuring whether the world is warming/cooling when compared to previous times?

[SteveB]

6 minutes ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

Comparisons with day to day weather is tricky, but for climate it's all very useful. I'll try give a very general example.
Lets say you drill a core in a lake somewhere, doesn't matter where. You date the layers in the core using, lets say, carbon isotopes which are accurate to about 80 years, (Other methods can be more or less accurate, but it depends on the samples you have and the time frames you're looking at which is best to use.)
So within these layers, you could examine the pollen. The types and quantities of pollen tell you about, mostly, the local vegetation. As we know, vegetation varies based on climate. Some species are stable within a particular temperature range which is useful for averages, others can occur in blooms, telling you about specific weather/climate events. 
So lets say you date part of a core, it's 10,000 years old and you find lots of pollen from a plant that tends to appear in climates with average temperatures of 10-15C. That's your first error range - 10,000 years ago, at location X, the annual temperature was between 10-15C each year. A pretty big range, but you have to start somewhere.
Then someone else examines the same core and find pollen from a species that prefers temperatures of 7-12C. So if you think of the 2 species being part of a Venn Diagram of their ideal temperatures, they overlap in the 10-12C range. This then becomes your new error range - 10,000 years ago at location X the temperature was between 10 and 12C on average.
You can keep adding to that and improving things. Some species might die out suddenly as seasonal frosts appear, while new ones will fill the niche. Some might disappear when a particular annual or seasonal temperature threshold is breached. The lake might be strongly affected by seasonal freezing, producing layers that vary on a seasonal basis, so you can be even more accurate with your trends and dating (and also use that to estimate how long the lake stayed frozen and thus more temperature info).
All these things will contribute to reducing your error margins. And that's just a snippet on palynology from someone who's never worked in that area (but has several friends and colleagues that do). There are loads of other proxy data sets too, from oxygen isotopes, to speleothems, and loads more. The more you add, the more info you can get.
 

These things can even tell you about the general atmospheric circulation patterns. Using lakes and pollen again, variations in the abundance of non-native pollen can tell you a lot about the dominant wind patterns. For example, if you have a lake in Austria, and you see in increase in pollen from Scandinavia, that would indicated more northerly winds. If you see an increase in pollen from the Mediterranean or North Africa, that would indicate an increase in southerly winds. In Europe, these variations are often tied with the dominant phases of the NAO, and so can allow you to track past variations in the atmospheric circulation of the north Atlantic. 

Many scientific institutions have examples and explanations on their websites, while wikipedia is also a great resource. There plenty of data out there for anyone interested in understanding proxy data a bit more.

Thank you for the detailed reply, I understand that you can measure trends within ice cores, but that's all it is, a variable measurement, not an exact measurement like we can do with today's equipment. That lake you used as an example, we can collate much more data today than just sediment samples. 

[Devonian]

6 minutes ago, SteveB said:

Thank you for the detailed reply, I understand that you can measure trends within ice cores, but that's all it is, a variable measurement, not an exact measurement like we can do with today's equipment. That lake you used as an example, we can collate much more data today than just sediment samples. 

No, as BFTV carefully explains, the range can be constrained by the use of various proxys - and tightly constrained.

[Methuselah]

7 minutes ago, SteveB said:

Thank you for the detailed reply, I understand that you can measure trends within ice cores, but that's all it is, a variable measurement, not an exact measurement like we can do with today's equipment. That lake you used as an example, we can collate much more data today than just sediment samples. 

You can also observe the north-south (and up and down mountains) oscillations of such things as birch pollen, as birches get out-competed by other species when it's warm, but are wonderfully adapted to colder climes, where they have the advantage.

The same goes for the physical effects of Ice Ages: moraines, cirques, ice-scoured boulders that have been left behind by retreating ice-sheets.

The wonderful thing about proxy data is that Nature can neither cheat nor be fooled; plants and animals relocate according to external changes in their respective environments, and those migrations can be tracked through time... 

[cheeky_monkey]

not sure what any of the above has to do with solar minimums?

[Methuselah]

18 minutes ago, cheeky_monkey said:

not sure what any of the above has to do with solar minimums?

I think it's important to have everyone agreeing upon which data are valid and which are not...Once we've accomplished that (and filtered out the known effects of Milankovitch cycles, plate tectonics and greenhouse gases) we can properly analyse the Solar Cyclists' hypothesis, that the sun is the main driver of climate change...?

[BornFromTheVoid]

Our technology will always improve and, with it, the accuracy with which we can measure everything on our rocky little ball. If we started every data set afresh with every new instrument or technique improvement, we'd have no long term records of very much at all.
Once the limitations of a type of data are understood and can be put into context with other data sets, I don't see the issue.. If people just don't accept that, or what the experts on the topic deem good practice, then there's not a whole lot any of us can do!

26 minutes ago, cheeky_monkey said:

not sure what any of the above has to do with solar minimums?

I suppose it's related to how well we can say past variations in solar activity influenced the weather and climate.
Much of the evidence for the solar cycle-climate connection come from data unrelated to modern meteorological instruments.

 

Edited November 23, 2018 by BornFromTheVoid