How will Solar Minimum affect weather and climate Take 2?

[jonboy]

9 minutes ago, SteveB said:

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.

 

I'm not sure why you are using the term 'Dimming Sun' The sun's heat output and brightness in reality has not changed however its magnetic protection via the heliosphere and EUV and F10 wavelength out puts have and it is these that are thought to influence earth's climate the most

[SteveB]

1 hour ago, jonboy said:

I'm not sure why you are using the term 'Dimming Sun' The sun's heat output and brightness in reality has not changed however its magnetic protection via the heliosphere and EUV and F10 wavelength out puts have and it is these that are thought to influence earth's climate the most

Dimming sun is a term I've heard used when referring to low solar output, which is what is currently being observed.

[jonboy]

11 minutes ago, SteveB said:

Dimming sun is a term I've heard used when referring to low solar output, which is what is currently being observed.

Dimming sun and global dimming are terms used incorrectly for low sloar cycles as they refer to particulants in the atmosphere that reflect back the suns energy before it can reach the esrths surface thus dimming the sun.

[BornFromTheVoid]

1 hour ago, jonboy said:

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.

 

Here is your comment:
 

On 27/11/2018 at 17:35, jonboy said:

We talk about the depth of this cycles minimum and possible effects on climate but cycles 19 20 21 and 22 wete towards grand maximum levels. So if a grand minimum can cool why hasnt grand max had the opposite effect

The opposite effect of minimum induced cooling is maximum induced warming. To claim that I'm misrepresenting your question is both pedantic and incorrect.
I gave an answer. The answer involved reference to the IPCC report on the topic, which mentioned GhG radiative forcing being important for why TSI has little effect. So clearly, you complained about GhG being brought up in response to your question, despite it being an important part of the answer. If you don't like that GhGs matter, then tough luck.

Ozone production, stratosphere, jet stream - all well and good, except, there's no strong evidence to suggest they do anything other than contribute to short term variability, despite your comment being about the warming from a grand maximum. It's like me asking about long term trends in Antarctic temperatures and complaining that the evil researchers didn't take into account the NAO, even though the two are not related.

Yes, there's plenty more to be understood. And how people make progress on those topics is through rigorous scientific studies and publishing through the peer review process. Climate change contrarian websites and blogs aren't where the science is done.
Lets be clear on Jeff Sharp. Just because Sharps stuff appears on the myriad of climate change contrarian websites, doesn't mean it's legitimate, if anything it's the opposite. He writes up amateur papers but none of them are published in journals or through the peer review process. The climate contrarian blogosphere pushes his stuff as though they are actual scientific studies, tricking amateur readers with little knowledge on the topic into believing them to be real published research papers. It's all about pushing any and all ideas that make their readers question AGW and to attack the scientists and their institutions as being biased and untrustworthy. It's clearly very effective.

[Methuselah]

27 minutes ago, jonboy said:

Dimming sun and global dimming are terms used incorrectly for low sloar cycles as they refer to particulants in the atmosphere that reflect back the suns energy before it can reach the esrths surface thus dimming the sun.

Any evidence to back-up that statement, jonboy? How were these atmospheric particulants [sic] measured, back during the Maunder minimum? Or are they entirely theoretical?

But, whether theoretical or otherwise, the upcoming GSM (should it materialise) will present a great opportunity for a comprehensive scientific study...

[jonboy]

1 hour ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

 

Here is your comment:
 

The opposite effect of minimum induced cooling is maximum induced warming. To claim that I'm misrepresenting your question is both pedantic and incorrect.
I gave an answer. The answer involved reference to the IPCC report on the topic, which mentioned GhG radiative forcing being important for why TSI has little effect. So clearly, you complained about GhG being brought up in response to your question, despite it being an important part of the answer. If you don't like that GhGs matter, then tough luck.

Ozone production, stratosphere, jet stream - all well and good, except, there's no strong evidence to suggest they do anything other than contribute to short term variability, despite your comment being about the warming from a grand maximum. It's like me asking about long term trends in Antarctic temperatures and complaining that the evil researchers didn't take into account the NAO, even though the two are not related.

Yes, there's plenty more to be understood. And how people make progress on those topics is through rigorous scientific studies and publishing through the peer review process. Climate change contrarian websites and blogs aren't where the science is done.
Lets be clear on Jeff Sharp. Just because Sharps stuff appears on the myriad of climate change contrarian websites, doesn't mean it's legitimate, if anything it's the opposite. He writes up amateur papers but none of them are published in journals or through the peer review process. The climate contrarian blogosphere pushes his stuff as though they are actual scientific studies, tricking amateur readers with little knowledge on the topic into believing them to be real published research papers. It's all about pushing any and all ideas that make their readers question AGW and to attack the scientists and their institutions as being biased and untrustworthy. It's clearly very effective.

Please its geoff sharp not jeff sharp wrong sharp

[BornFromTheVoid]

30 minutes ago, jonboy said:

Please its geoff sharp not jeff sharp wrong sharp

Correct Sharp, wrong first name. We're still referring to the same guy - the one that hasn't had his ideas go through the peer review system so it's published and promoted anti-climate science blogs and websites.

Edited November 29, 2018 by BornFromTheVoid

[jonboy]

16 minutes ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

Correct Sharp, wrong first name. We're still referring to the same guy - the one that hasn't had his ideas go through the peer review system so it's published and promoted anti-climate science blogs and websites.

Funny really that the paper was peer reviewed and published in the international journal of astromony and astrophysics

[jethro]

5 hours 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.

I genuinely don't see a lot of that, really I don't. I genuinely haven't seen anyone state that climate projections are wrong, absolutely no one has claimed CO2 has no effect - all that has been asked is can a relatively active solar period have contributed to the warming. That's a perfectly valid question. As is, can a quiet sun diminish the warming trend. Personally speaking, I think an appropriate answer would be yes to both questions, but that is not / has not / will not be the lead cause for the changing climate. Instead, what I see is an awful lot of defensiveness, and a complete change in the emphasis of those questions, which is just bonkers.

The whole premise of this discussion is that it's speculative, it has to be because there are no set in stone answers, no peer reviewed studies. And if someone decides that the Sun is king, that it leads climate change, at the end of the day, does it really matter? This isn't a peer reviewed study group, nor an academic establishment and part of an education establishment, it's an informal public chat room. No one has to convince anyone of anything, there's no onus to achieve a consensus, all there is, is a basic rule of thumb of 'I may not agree with what you say, but I respect your right to say it.

[jethro]

6 hours 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...?

I see no reason to doubt or challenge Mike Lockwood's research.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/5/2/024001/meta

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8615789.stm

[Methuselah]

4 minutes ago, jethro said:

I see no reason to doubt or challenge Mike Lockwood's research.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/5/2/024001/meta

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8615789.stm

No need at all, to doubt; but ,plenty need to challenge: without challenge, all scientific research would have ceased decades ago...

[jonboy]

2 minutes ago, Ed Stone said:

No need at all, to doubt; but ,plenty need to challenge: without challenge, all scientific research would have ceased decades ago...

Then allow me to challenge your concensus view as long as i do it with reasonable alternatives that do have basis in fact. If you look closely at solar cycles over long periods and not just individual cycles then when you have a succession of high sctive cycles tempratures appear to rise anf when you a series of low to very low cycles they fall it cant be just coincidence.

[jethro]

4 minutes ago, Ed Stone said:

No need at all, to doubt; but ,plenty need to challenge: without challenge, all scientific research would have ceased decades ago...

But challenge without valid cause is a bit pointless. He's a clever chap, eminently qualified, I'm 100% certain he wouldn't have ignored the current climate, the causes of it and the impacts already felt, including ice levels. If his studies show that the winter of 2010 can largely be attributed to the change in UV levels, as a result of solar changes, I'm happy to accept that and cite it in this discussion as a possible impact this part of the world may see more frequently, if we go into a deep minimum.

[jethro]

27 minutes ago, jonboy said:

Then allow me to challenge your concensus view as long as i do it with reasonable alternatives that do have basis in fact. If you look closely at solar cycles over long periods and not just individual cycles then when you have a succession of high sctive cycles tempratures appear to rise anf when you a series of low to very low cycles they fall it cant be just coincidence.

If I may.....I don't think anyone doubts that, nor claims it not to be true. But and it's an enormous but, the influence the sun has (whether it be high activity or low activity) is dwarfed by the impact CO2 has, and has had.  Ignore the actual numbers here (it's irrelevant what the number is)  if you imagine an active sun makes the world warmer by 1c and an inactive sun makes it cooler by 1c, CO2 makes it warmer by 3c. So an active sun may make it a little bit warmer, but not a lot, and not as warm as CO2 has made it. But an inactive sun can only make it 1c cooler, so it's still warmer by 2c than it would be, due to the CO2. So an inactive sun isn't going to cool the globe, it can't because it isn't powerful enough to wipe out the warming caused by CO2, all it can do is possibly, ever so slightly, slow down the rise in temperatures that CO2 is causing.

Does that make any sense?

 

Edited November 29, 2018 by jethro
Typo

[jonboy]

20 minutes ago, jethro said:

If I may.....I don't think anyone doubts that, nor claims it not to be true. But and it's an enormous but, the influence the sun has (whether it be high activity or low activity) is dwarfed by the impact CO2 has, and has had.  Ignore the actual numbers here (it's irrelevant what the number is)  if you imagine an active sun makes the world warmer by 1c and an inactive sun makes it cooler by 1c, CO2 makes it warmer by 3c. So an active sun may make it a little bit warmer, but not a lot, and not as warm as CO2 has made it. But an inactive sun can only make it 1c cooler, so it's still warmer by 2c than it would be, due to the CO2. So an inactive sun isn't going to cool the globe, it can't because it isn't powerful enough to wipe out the warming caused by CO2, all it can do is possibly, ever so slightly, slow down the rise in temperatures that CO2 is causing.

Does that make any sense?

Thats assuming co2 causes the level of warming being projected by the ippc

There is research that states on a molecular basis that such projections are 30 to 40 % overstated. If true then solar could ne playing a much bigger part than thought. 

The research i refer to is by Hermann Harde and published in the intermational journal of astrophysic sciences

[Methuselah]

42 minutes ago, jethro said:

But challenge without valid cause is a bit pointless. He's a clever chap, eminently qualified, I'm 100% certain he wouldn't have ignored the current climate, the causes of it and the impacts already felt, including ice levels. If his studies show that the winter of 2010 can largely be attributed to the change in UV levels, as a result of solar changes, I'm happy to accept that and cite it in this discussion as a possible impact this part of the world may see more frequently, if we go into a deep minimum.

No. I mean challenge by means of undertaking further research, Jethro (there's no better way to verify/refute/test a theory than by further experimentation) -- not by simply blowing an enormous raspberry!

[JeffC]

17 minutes ago, Ed Stone said:

 not by simply blowing an enormous raspberry!

Not too big a raspberry please we don't want uncontrolled dimming of the sun!! 

[jethro]

21 minutes ago, jonboy said:

Thats assuming co2 causes the level of warming being projected by the ippc

There is research that states on a molecular basis that such projections are 30 to 40 % overstated. If true then solar could ne playing a much bigger part than thought. 

The research i refer to is by Hermann Harde and published in the intermational journal of astrophysic sciences

Any chance of a link, I've not read that.

To be honest, there's no science that I've seen that could in any way either question that CO2 warms, or that the levels are very high, continue to rise and that we're the ones guilty of that problem. Off the top of my head I can't remember the actual figures but even if the projected warming was being over stated by 100%, I still doubt whether the variation in the sun's output would out strip the warming caused by CO2. Put it another way, imagine we're back in summer time, it's June and we're in the middle of that glorious hot weather we had. You put on a jumper and a coat and you're hot, getting hotter. You take off your coat, yes you're a bit cooler but you're still hot. Well that's the sun and CO2, take one out the equation and you're still hot.

[jethro]

18 minutes ago, Ed Stone said:

No. I mean challenge by means of undertaking further research, Jethro (there's no better way to verify/refute/test a theory than by further experimentation) -- not by simply blowing an enormous raspberry!

Of course, but you asked how certain the science was that it was changes in UV levels and not changes in ice levels that caused that winter, the science is pretty robust.

[jethro]

@BornFromTheVoid Spoke too soon, Jonboy just has questioned the projected warming of CO2, apologies if this is what you were referring to.

[cheeky_monkey]

given up on this thread now...moving on

[jethro]

24 minutes ago, jethro said:

Any chance of a link, I've not read that.

To be honest, there's no science that I've seen that could in any way either question that CO2 warms, or that the levels are very high, continue to rise and that we're the ones guilty of that problem. Off the top of my head I can't remember the actual figures but even if the projected warming was being over stated by 100%, I still doubt whether the variation in the sun's output would out strip the warming caused by CO2. Put it another way, imagine we're back in summer time, it's June and we're in the middle of that glorious hot weather we had. You put on a jumper and a coat and you're hot, getting hotter. You take off your coat, yes you're a bit cooler but you're still hot. Well that's the sun and CO2, take one out the equation and you're still hot.

It's alright I've found it, and all the controversy surrounding it. From what I've read, I personally don't think it stands up as science that can be cited as valid. There's some serious flaws in the study and in the way it was peer reviewed. At best, I'd say it's a curiosity that may incite further studies, but shouldn't be taken seriously at this moment in time.

[Methuselah]

38 minutes ago, jethro said:

Of course, but you asked how certain the science was that it was changes in UV levels and not changes in ice levels that caused that winter, the science is pretty robust.

But you have given me a perfectly valid answer...Thank you!

[JeffC]

Ladies, Gentlemen, for that is how I see you all! 

Please can we respect that there are various opinions and perspectives on the base level of what solar minimum, be that Grand or regular, may be being looked at to influence. 

The base level may have changed and therefore the degree of influence may or may not be altered, if indeed that influence is measurable. 

Whatever your stance on the above, for pity's sake please keep debate civil sensible and in reasoned tones. 

Just because you don't subscribe to one view or another doesn't make you a luddite, a member of the flat earth society or a crank. 

Here endeth my umpteenth sermon! 

[Alex]

My recent experience/knowledge of sunspot activity is that there is often a delayed response in the atmosphere so I would prob say this year is more akin to 2006/2007. Difference is though that this cycle is lower than the last so I would expect some colder winters to come in the next few years and with the summer as someone has said its a roll of the dice with a meandering jet that is difficult to shift!