How will Solar Minimum affect weather and climate Take 2?

[jonboy]

Its funny how whenever someone suggests that solar had a particular impact or not in line with the title of the thread some will always counter that greenhouse gases have more impact. Can we please just discuss the potential of the title of this thread?

[BornFromTheVoid]

20 minutes ago, jonboy said:

Its funny how whenever someone suggests that solar had a particular impact or not in line with the title of the thread some will always counter that greenhouse gases have more impact. Can we please just discuss the potential of the title of this thread?

You asked a question and it was answered. If you don't like the answers, don't ask the questions.
The climate system is very much interlinked. It's not really possible to have a useful discussion on the influence of solar activity whilst ignoring all other climate drivers and the fact that the climate is rapidly changing already.

[Rambo]

48 minutes ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

You asked a question and it was answered. If you don't like the answers, don't ask the questions.
The climate system is very much interlinked. It's not really possible to have a useful discussion on the influence of solar activity whilst ignoring all other climate drivers and the fact that the climate is rapidly changing already.

In fairness, you didnt answer his question at all.

He basically asked "does a solar maximum have a warming effect?" You then brought AGW into it to illustrate your point about solar minimum not having much effect on temps. Again, he was asking about solar MAXIMUM.

 

So the broad idea/theory/fact (whichever way you lean) is that cosmic rays seed more clouds, and more cosmic rays hit the earth during a solar minimum. So could it be that at solar maximum, cloud cover is normal, therefore global temp stays average (rather than heat up), and during minimum, cloud cover increases beyond the norm, which trends the temp downwards? 

[BornFromTheVoid]

7 hours ago, Rambo said:

In fairness, you didnt answer his question at all.

He basically asked "does a solar maximum have a warming effect?" You then brought AGW into it to illustrate your point about solar minimum not having much effect on temps. Again, he was asking about solar MAXIMUM.

 

So the broad idea/theory/fact (whichever way you lean) is that cosmic rays seed more clouds, and more cosmic rays hit the earth during a solar minimum. So could it be that at solar maximum, cloud cover is normal, therefore global temp stays average (rather than heat up), and during minimum, cloud cover increases beyond the norm, which trends the temp downwards? 

I did say that increased solar activity probably contributed a small amount to early 20th century warming. The rest of my comment was meant to illustrate the point that large changes in solar activity have little effect on global temperatures.
The quote from the IPCC supports these points. It states that solar activity contributed towards a very small increase in radiative forcing from 1750 to present, that even at the end of the grand maximum solar cycles, that jb mentioned, the influence had become negative, and regardless of what solar activity does in the 20th century, it won't be much compared the GhGs.

Look at it this way, you can't answer the question "why isn't the sun causing warming" without mentioning that it's effects on global temperatures are being masked by another massive climate driver. That's simply the reality of the situation.
That's like asking the question "why isn't my weight gain due to a slowing metabolism", but feeling aggrieved that someone points out that the twice daily fast food intake is masking the effect of any variations in metabolism.

The cloud stuff is interesting, but doesn't have a great deal of scientific support unfortunately.

[Rambo]

3 hours ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

The cloud stuff is interesting, but doesn't have a great deal of scientific support unfortunately.

Along with nearly everything relating to solar cycle climate impacts haha. 

 

As for the rest of your comment, we'll have to agree to disagree as you seem intent on bringing agw into the answer, when in fact it has nothing to do with the question. "Does a maximum cause warming?".... which is completely different to "does a minimum cause cooling?" .....which is different again to "will a minimum cause cooling?" 

[BornFromTheVoid]

3 hours ago, Rambo said:

Along with nearly everything relating to solar cycle climate impacts haha. 

 

As for the rest of your comment, we'll have to agree to disagree as you seem intent on bringing agw into the answer, when in fact it has nothing to do with the question. "Does a maximum cause warming?".... which is completely different to "does a minimum cause cooling?" .....which is different again to "will a minimum cause cooling?" 

With reference to the question on whether the "grand maximum" causing warming...

19 hours ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

It probably contributed to some warming earlier in the 20th century...

Frpm the IPCC AR5:
...The best estimate of RF due to TSI changes representative for the 1750
to 2011 period is 0.05 (to 0.10) W  m–2...

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf

7 hours ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

I did say that increased solar activity probably contributed a small amount to early 20th century warming. The rest of my comment was meant to illustrate the point that large changes in solar activity have little effect on global temperatures....

I answered the question, provided evidence and additional context.
I suspect some people will just complain anytime AGW is mentioned, even when it a vital additional element to consider, such as in the current context.

 

 

 

[Gray-Wolf]

I seem to recall the cold winter of 09/10 was not massively 'cloudy' for the N.Hemisphere even with the loss of the solar wind to stop other cosmic interactions taking place...and all of this with the atmosphere's ability to hold water vapour on the up and up?

MetO pointed out a relationship between low solar and northern Atlantic blocking over that winter and it did seem to hold true?

Of course this was in the world prior to the 2012 Arctic sea ice crash so maybe we will see a differing outcome this time if the downstream pattern of the polar Jet was 'shifted' post 2012?

My personal observations are that the washout summers were driven by the loss of sea ice over the Atlantic entrance into the Arctic Basin and now that the Pacific entrance has joined in the fun the positioning of the polar Jet has again shifted its 'average' station leading to a more high pressure dominated synoptic ( as the summer past illustrates?) 

Will low solar just add into this HP dominance or will it help cancel out the impact?

More important ( to me) is whether we are slipping into the post 2012 pattern and next summer will be even more dominated by HP's and air masses from N. Africa/W.Europe with the Atlantic again blocked out of the picture.

We may have hated the washout summers ( and it might have cost me a small fortune to keep the 'kiddies' entertained over washed out Summer Hols) but I fear the costs of a similar run of Blazing Summers will be greater and more widely felt than any of the 'flood events' were?

As an aside the 'fools on the Hill' that ripped up the Moor above to look after their blessed grouse chicks in wet weather did not consider the greater impacts of their actions. The 'New' fast draining Moor might have flooded us twice now but the impacts of their measures over a dry summer nearly cost them the Moor over the past Summer. Any repeat will run the same risks of torching the Moor ( and Chicks) if a dryer than average Winter runs into another hot summer. The very channels they cut to drain the Moor will effectively draw air into the base of any fire that sparks up......

[Methuselah]

5 hours ago, Rambo said:

Along with nearly everything relating to solar cycle climate impacts haha. 

 

As for the rest of your comment, we'll have to agree to disagree as you seem intent on bringing agw into the answer, when in fact it has nothing to do with the question. "Does a maximum cause warming?".... which is completely different to "does a minimum cause cooling?" .....which is different again to "will a minimum cause cooling?" 

You are clearly 'unhappy' with the answers your questions elicit, Rambo...Why is that?

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi Pete!

I think we both know 'Why' but it would be nice to hear it first hand , you know? colours to the mast an' all that.

I think we all have to recognise we cannot strain out the impacts that man has so rapidly added into our climate to see the 'unadulterated' impacts of a long solar min.

For those staking everything on a 'natural' answer to AGW ( be it maunder like min or flip in the AMO) they do not appear to have very long to wait to find out how pathetic a hope it ever was?

T.B.H. if ever we needed rapid cooling it would be for the summer of 2019. The last thing we need is the 'new normal' temps across Yamal this coming summer. Russian scientists now have over 7,000 'pingo like structures across Yamal and we know at least 1,000 of those grew in 2016 so are timed to go 'POP' in 2019.

Sadly the folk who Nino/Nina watch for us ( both Australian and american outfits) give us a 90%+ chance of seeing a new Nino form in Jan /Feb of 2019 meaning , even allowing for lag, the coming summer will have added warmth.

Studies of the crater fields formed at the end of the last ice age point at 'joined up eruptions' occurring over a few weeks.

If this is what is lined up then expect a massive , post eruption, warm pulse prior to the gas migrating globally. If we are unlucky such a warm up will merely make a bad thing worse by promoting further 'meltdowns' in the permafrost cap holding back the massive reserves of 'free Methane' in the Northern permafrost both across Siberia and in the East Siberian Sea.

To bring this into focus my 'A' Level master in Geography taught us that we were thousands of years from running into any issues with the submerged permafrosts off Siberia.

[Rambo]

You people, fed up with this now. I didn't even ask the question, but you insist on bringing agw into everything!

How agw is responsible for a solar maximum not having much warming effect is beyond me? 

[Gray-Wolf]

Well rambo it's because you said AGW and not 'man's pollution'?

The globally dimmed period of 1940 to 1980 would have covered the period of max solar would it not?

All that soot and sulphate would have done just what soot and sulphate does when Mother N. throws it into the atmosphere don'tcha think?

Edited November 28, 2018 by Gray-Wolf

[Methuselah]

11 minutes ago, Rambo said:

You people, fed up with this now. I didn't even ask the question, but you insist on bringing agw into everything!

How agw is responsible for a solar maximum not having much warming effect is beyond me? 

All you have to do is tell us why...In other words, you need to present some, any evidence that supports your contention...? In the mean time, I doubt if anyone's going to roll over and tell you what you want to hear...

As it is, the more answers you receive (and choose to ignore) the greater becomes the weight of the counter-evidence?

[jethro]

If I may step in here a mo, reading through the last page or so it does appear this discussion has slipped into yet another AGW discussion (what grouse moors have to do with anything is beyond me) and I do recognise and sympathise with Rambo's frustration here. The title of the thread is 'How will Solar minimum affect weather and climate' - NOT 'Will a grand minimum cancel out AGW?', nor is it 'Did the Sun make the world warm?'  There really is no need to discuss how AGW has altered the climate, or whether the sun played a part in the changing climate, when the question is how will a quiet sun affect the climate. The climate is how it is today, why or how it got there is irrelevant, for this discussion it's a take the world as it is now, add in a deep solar minimum and what will happen?

[Methuselah]

Well that's simple, Jethro...no-one knows...?

[jethro]

8 minutes ago, Ed Stone said:

Well that's simple, Jethro...no-one knows...?

Agreed but where's the fun in that? There's some clever people on here, surely there must be some discussion to be had on possible consequences beyond 'it won't cancel out AGW, lower TSI isn't enough to cool the world, the world will carry on warming'. It just seems like such a lazy, off pat way to respond. Climate and weather is full of nuances, and despite AGW and a much warmer climate than the time of the last deep minimum, despite the drastic difference in ice levels, 2010 showed us all what a quiet solar period can do to our winter weather. That was merely a quieter than average period of solar activity during the normal minimum period of a usual solar cycle, no where near the low levels some physicists are expecting if we go into a deep minimum. Surely that's worthy of discussion, not just swept aside in the usual 'AGW is king' response.

[BornFromTheVoid]

To me, to consider only and purely what a grand minimum would do to the climate nowadays, requires the assumption the climate is otherwise static and nothing has caused it to get to this point and nothing else will cause it to change either. None of that is true, so the discussion is starting from a false premise immediately.
Purely looking at the TSI and it's effect is simple - it won't do a whole lot. If you want to get into how a grand minimum might produce stronger cooling or intense regional variation, then you're getting into the world of feedback mechanisms and teleconnections (which are tied to so many other things) and have once again left the ideal of only discussing the impact of a grand minimum.

The climate isn't a simple thing, unfortunately, so to have a discussion based purely on a grand minimum and the weather/climate without including elements that are intrinsic to the climate system requires simplification to the point of being wrong.

[jethro]

8 minutes ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

To me, to consider only and purely what a grand minimum would do to the climate nowadays, requires the assumption the climate is otherwise static and nothing has caused it to get to this point and nothing else will cause it to change either. None of that is true, so the discussion is starting from a false premise immediately.
Purely looking at the TSI and it's effect is simple - it won't do a whole lot. If you want to get into how a grand minimum might produce stronger cooling or intense regional variation, then you're getting into the world of feedback mechanisms and teleconnections (which are tied to so many other things) and have once again left the ideal of only discussing the impact of a grand minimum.

The climate isn't a simple thing, unfortunately, so to have a discussion based purely on a grand minimum and the weather/climate without including elements that are intrinsic to the climate system requires simplification to the point of being wrong.

Completely disagree and you're misunderstanding my point.

It doesn't require the climate to be static at all, all it requires is that the knowledge we currently have on climate is an accepted given, that it isn't being questioned or doubted, that this isn't a discussion on the validity of the AGW theory, nor the impacts we already know it to have had and is likely to have.

Feedback mechanisms, teleconnections are precisely what this discussion should be about but the focus and emphasis should be on ADD in a grand minimum and what happens? Changes? Impacts? etc

No one, least of all myself, is suggesting the climate is simple, quite the contrary. But neither is the climate as simple as saying 'AGW is king, it will over-rule any and everything'. Globally, it may well be king when it comes to GLOBAL temperatures, but that ignores a whole world of weather impacts felt locally.

 

[Rambo]

5 hours ago, Gray-Wolf said:

All that soot and sulphate would have done just what soot and sulphate does when Mother N. throws it into the atmosphere don'tcha think?

What would it have done?

[Rambo]

5 hours ago, Ed Stone said:

All you have to do is tell us why...In other words, you need to present some, any evidence that supports your contention...? In the mean time, I doubt if anyone's going to roll over and tell you what you want to hear...

As it is, the more answers you receive (and choose to ignore) the greater becomes the weight of the counter-evidence?

I'll try one more time...just once more.....you never know.......................I'M NOT ASKING THE QUESTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Rambo]

6 hours ago, Gray-Wolf said:

Well rambo it's because you said AGW and not 'man's pollution'?

Oh and just for the record, it was BFTV who said AGW, so perhaps you should bring it up with him???

[Methuselah]

12 hours ago, jethro said:

Agreed but where's the fun in that? There's some clever people on here, surely there must be some discussion to be had on possible consequences beyond 'it won't cancel out AGW, lower TSI isn't enough to cool the world, the world will carry on warming'. It just seems like such a lazy, off pat way to respond. Climate and weather is full of nuances, and despite AGW and a much warmer climate than the time of the last deep minimum, despite the drastic difference in ice levels, 2010 showed us all what a quiet solar period can do to our winter weather. That was merely a quieter than average period of solar activity during the normal minimum period of a usual solar cycle, no where near the low levels some physicists are expecting if we go into a deep minimum. Surely that's worthy of discussion, not just swept aside in the usual 'AGW is king' response.

But did it, J? How does one disentangle the effect of melting sea-ice from that of the quiet sun? And how does one disentangle those two effects from all the other myriad drivers and feedbacks, that must be in operation?

Sometimes even the 'simplest' of questions can open the most entangled can of worms...?

[BornFromTheVoid]

12 hours ago, jethro said:

Completely disagree and you're misunderstanding my point.

It doesn't require the climate to be static at all, all it requires is that the knowledge we currently have on climate is an accepted given, that it isn't being questioned or doubted, that this isn't a discussion on the validity of the AGW theory, nor the impacts we already know it to have had and is likely to have.

Feedback mechanisms, teleconnections are precisely what this discussion should be about but the focus and emphasis should be on ADD in a grand minimum and what happens? Changes? Impacts? etc

No one, least of all myself, is suggesting the climate is simple, quite the contrary. But neither is the climate as simple as saying 'AGW is king, it will over-rule any and everything'. Globally, it may well be king when it comes to GLOBAL temperatures, but that ignores a whole world of weather impacts felt locally.

 

It seems there are some crossed wires here. Discussion around the solar activity an short term weather is fine.

The problems arises, as it has again and again in this thread, when people start making declarations about how climate projections are wrong because of the massive under studied solar influence, or start claiming CO2 has no effect on something, when it actually has a clear and measurable effect. When some of us comment to correct the errors, folks jump up and down complaining how we're forcing the conversation onto AGW.

For example, this recent line of AGW/GhG discussion started with comment about how the Met Office report might be wrong due to not taking into account the grand minimum. So I responded with some discussion and studies looking at the global temperature/grand minimum connections.
Then there was a comment asking about why the solar maximum last century didn't cause warming. I pointed out that it did probably did cause warming, but the radiative forcing was small compared to GhGs at the times - thus making the suns influence harder to detect.
From there people started complaining about AGW theory in the thread.

I think it's clear that a small few members want this turned into an anti-AGW echo chamber, where effects of GhGs can dismissed and diminished without real challenge. That's simply not going to happen. Discussion around say, what a grand minimum right now might have on winter weather and stuff is fine, so long as it doesn't drift the area of snide comments dismissive of GhG theory. But so far, that doesn't seem possible.

[jonboy]

1 hour ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

It seems there are some crossed wires here. Discussion around the solar activity an short term weather is fine.

The problems arises, as it has again and again in this thread, when people start making declarations about how climate projections are wrong because of the massive under studied solar influence, or start claiming CO2 has no effect on something, when it actually has a clear and measurable effect. When some of us comment to correct the errors, folks jump up and down complaining how we're forcing the conversation onto AGW.

For example, this recent line of AGW/GhG discussion started with comment about how the Met Office report might be wrong due to not taking into account the grand minimum. So I responded with some discussion and studies looking at the global temperature/grand minimum connections.
Then there was a comment asking about why the solar maximum last century didn't cause warming. I pointed out that it did probably did cause warming, but the radiative forcing was small compared to GhGs at the times - thus making the suns influence harder to detect.
From there people started complaining about AGW theory in the thread.

I think it's clear that a small few members want this turned into an anti-AGW echo chamber, where effects of GhGs can dismissed and diminished without real challenge. That's simply not going to happen. Discussion around say, what a grand minimum right now might have on winter weather and stuff is fine, so long as it doesn't drift the area of snide comments dismissive of GhG theory. But so far, that doesn't seem possible.

Yet again manipulation of questions asked. I did not ask why solar maximum didn't create warming I said if solar minimum can cause cooling why can't the opposite be true about grand maximum's. At no point have I ever bought AGW into my posts on this thread unless its been raised first by others. I would prefer if people want to respond to a point I might raise or question I ask that they stick to the point raised. For instance a response to my question regarding grand maximum not causing warming should regards to the method this can't be achieved not that AGW overrides this. The sun's output at both max and minimum are not just about cosmic ray's but are also about ozone production, about how it influences our upper atmosphere temperature. There are many many facets that are not fully understood yet we obsess with CO2 as the main driver for everything climate yet are unwilling to spent a small fraction of that spent telling us how evil we are for creating CO2 when if we actually fully understood what influences solar cycles (try reading Geoff Sharp's paper on Uranus and Neptune's Influence) then we just might understand better longer term climate trends.

[jonboy]

1 hour ago, Ed Stone said:

But did it, J? How does one disentangle the effect of melting sea-ice from that of the quiet sun? And how does one disentangle those two effects from all the other myriad drivers and feedbacks, that must be in operation?

Sometimes even the 'simplest' of questions can open the most entangled can of worms...?

We are seeing a rapid refreeze at times and especially this year when some have predicted this would never happen. It takes time for heat to dissipate unless you turn off the heat source totally. To me it is no surprise the entry into minimum has been quick and is considerably lower than the previous 4 cycles. Not only that but cycle 24 max was also considerably lower than that of cycles 21,22 and 23. IF solar cycles in fact  play a significant role in earth's temperature it is little surprise we have seen a steady decline over the last 30/40 years in sea ice but could now see a steady increase. I just ask that we consider all factors properly

[SteveB]

10 minutes ago, jonboy said:

We are seeing a rapid refreeze at times and especially this year when some have predicted this would never happen. It takes time for heat to dissipate unless you turn off the heat source totally. To me it is no surprise the entry into minimum has been quick and is considerably lower than the previous 4 cycles. Not only that but cycle 24 max was also considerably lower than that of cycles 21,22 and 23. IF solar cycles in fact  play a significant role in earth's temperature it is little surprise we have seen a steady decline over the last 30/40 years in sea ice but could now see a steady increase. I just ask that we consider all factors properly

Apparently though Jonboy, global temperatures have increased year on year over the last 20yrs, and four of the warmest years have occurred in the last four years. Faced with this evidence, it's impossible to see anything stopping the ever warming globe, we may actually end up a tropical watery world from North to South. 

It would appear these little blips in the Holt of ice free regions  in summer, is just that.... a blip.... it would appear....

I fear for any impact on a dimming sun will have, faced with this evidence placed before us.

There's nowt you and I can do about it, it's down to our glorious leaders to put a stop to it, and allow us to return to the natural order of things.

 

Edited November 29, 2018 by SteveB