How will Solar Minimum affect weather and climate Take 2?

[JeffC]

9 hours ago, Alex said:

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!

Thanks Alex, tends to coincide with my views... But that generally meandering jet roll of a dice situation will be as prevalent in the winter as well, meaning that once a particular type of weather becomes established, it takes something significant to flip it out of the status quo. 

It does perhaps show that the climate we enjoy is quote knife edge stuff and it only takes a small change in one parameter to have an exaggerated effect on the weather, and longer term the overall climate. 

There are numerous systems on the earth which are impacted by changes in parameters; North Atlantic Drift/ Gulf Stream, ENSO etc., and I guess as one thing changes a domino effect will come into play. 

The advantage we have today over yesteryear is that we are now able to monitor, evaluate and understand the cause and effect to some extent although doubtless much to learn. 

Whether we can do much about things like CO2 figures is debatable longer term. Having 8+ billion people all exhaling the stuff isn't going to help, but that's for a different thread. 

[jethro]

I've only scan read these but there's some really interesting points in them about potential impacts of a new Grand Minimum.

https://www.historicalclimatology.com/blog/what-was-the-maunder-minimum-new-perspectives-on-an-old-question

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/maunder-minimum

https://www.actuaries.asn.au/Library/Events/SUM/2013/Sum2013PaperBrentWalker.pdf

https://nextgrandminimum.com/2018/11/22/professor-valentina-zharkova-breaks-her-silence-and-confirms-super-grand-solar-minimum/#comments

[jonboy]

1 hour ago, jethro said:

I've only scan read these but there's some really interesting points in them about potential impacts of a new Grand Minimum.

https://www.historicalclimatology.com/blog/what-was-the-maunder-minimum-new-perspectives-on-an-old-question

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/maunder-minimum

https://www.actuaries.asn.au/Library/Events/SUM/2013/Sum2013PaperBrentWalker.pdf

https://nextgrandminimum.com/2018/11/22/professor-valentina-zharkova-breaks-her-silence-and-confirms-super-grand-solar-minimum/#comments

Thanks Jethro I had not seen Brent Walkers paper but do have his original one which this updates. Its interesting as it sets out causes and thus what impacts should be considered. It is his original paper that made me think more about the impact of solar cycles

 

 

[BornFromTheVoid]

17 hours ago, jethro said:

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.

Just to be clear, that CO2 has no effect on something, not that it has none at all. I think those types of comments have been clear as day on this thread - different perspectives I guess. As I mentioned, I answered the questions too and only brought in GhGs where it was relevant.

But there are peer reviewed studies on the topic. There are experts working on the sun/Earth climate connection. And speculation is all well and good, so long as those engaging in speculation don't go getting defensive and upset when they are challenged or disproven.

And there are negative impacts around the creation echo chambers filled with false information. To start off with, it presents a false viewpoint of what climate science is about and what are valid or evidence based theories within the topic to lurkers. It also is problematic on a societal scale. Proof of this is seen in the effectiveness of climate denier propaganda and the websites and blogs that host it. All the time we see their nonsense attempting to get pushed in here as though it's gold standard. We see hatred of climate scientists online and in public. Creating safe spaces where false info can be promoted and go unchallenged is a problem for modern social media in general that is being tackled to varying degrees as we speak.

[BornFromTheVoid]

1 hour ago, jethro said:

I've only scan read these but there's some really interesting points in them about potential impacts of a new Grand Minimum.

https://www.historicalclimatology.com/blog/what-was-the-maunder-minimum-new-perspectives-on-an-old-question

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/maunder-minimum

https://www.actuaries.asn.au/Library/Events/SUM/2013/Sum2013PaperBrentWalker.pdf

https://nextgrandminimum.com/2018/11/22/professor-valentina-zharkova-breaks-her-silence-and-confirms-super-grand-solar-minimum/#comments

They are worth looking at in closer detail, if only to see the problems with them.

The first link doesn't have much to it, it's just a blog post, but nothing jumps out as immediately problematic.

The book in the second link appears to be from a selection of books, but one of them is by Don Easterbrook, a well known climate change contrarian. As it is, books don't requires much scientific review, which is why that particular book also has sections from Christopher Monkton and Tony Heller (Steven Goddard). The other ones appear ok, but the Evidence Based Climate Science (the Easterbrook one) is not worth the paper it's printed on.

The third link is a conference presentations (not peer reviewed again) by a non-expert to a non-expert crowd. I haven't the time to read through it much, but these non-expert perspectives on complex topics should always be viewed with caution.

The last link, the Zharkova video one, she studies solar physics, but has never published a single paper related to climate science or the link between the sun and the Earths climate. Making dramatic claims in a presentation to the UK's biggest climate denier group, the GWPF, is the most she appears to have done that's climate related.

[jethro]

41 minutes ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

They are worth looking at in closer detail, if only to see the problems with them.

The first link doesn't have much to it, it's just a blog post, but nothing jumps out as immediately problematic.

The book in the second link appears to be from a selection of books, but one of them is by Don Easterbrook, a well known climate change contrarian. As it is, books don't requires much scientific review, which is why that particular book also has sections from Christopher Monkton and Tony Heller (Steven Goddard). The other ones appear ok, but the Evidence Based Climate Science (the Easterbrook one) is not worth the paper it's printed on.

The third link is a conference presentations (not peer reviewed again) by a non-expert to a non-expert crowd. I haven't the time to read through it much, but these non-expert perspectives on complex topics should always be viewed with caution.

The last link, the Zharkova video one, she studies solar physics, but has never published a single paper related to climate science or the link between the sun and the Earths climate. Making dramatic claims in a presentation to the UK's biggest climate denier group, the GWPF, is the most she appears to have done that's climate related.

How do you peer review something that hasn't happened? 

[jethro]

1 hour ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

Just to be clear, that CO2 has no effect on something, not that it has none at all. I think those types of comments have been clear as day on this thread - different perspectives I guess. As I mentioned, I answered the questions too and only brought in GhGs where it was relevant.

But there are peer reviewed studies on the topic. There are experts working on the sun/Earth climate connection. And speculation is all well and good, so long as those engaging in speculation don't go getting defensive and upset when they are challenged or disproven.

And there are negative impacts around the creation echo chambers filled with false information. To start off with, it presents a false viewpoint of what climate science is about and what are valid or evidence based theories within the topic to lurkers. It also is problematic on a societal scale. Proof of this is seen in the effectiveness of climate denier propaganda and the websites and blogs that host it. All the time we see their nonsense attempting to get pushed in here as though it's gold standard. We see hatred of climate scientists online and in public. Creating safe spaces where false info can be promoted and go unchallenged is a problem for modern social media in general that is being tackled to varying degrees as we speak.

Given what you study/studied at Uni, presuming that your career is/will be related, and the circle of people that you study/work with, I can see that the negativity of this topic would feature large. However, in general, day to day living I think you're very wrong. What I see in the world is a massive movement to use less, re-cycle more, look after the planet and reduce energy consumption. ALL of that is driven by the widespread knowledge and support for the climate change science. You're doing the vast majority of people an enormous dis-service.

[jonboy]

3 hours ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

They are worth looking at in closer detail, if only to see the problems with them.

The first link doesn't have much to it, it's just a blog post, but nothing jumps out as immediately problematic.

The book in the second link appears to be from a selection of books, but one of them is by Don Easterbrook, a well known climate change contrarian. As it is, books don't requires much scientific review, which is why that particular book also has sections from Christopher Monkton and Tony Heller (Steven Goddard). The other ones appear ok, but the Evidence Based Climate Science (the Easterbrook one) is not worth the paper it's printed on.

The third link is a conference presentations (not peer reviewed again) by a non-expert to a non-expert crowd. I haven't the time to read through it much, but these non-expert perspectives on complex topics should always be viewed with caution.

The last link, the Zharkova video one, she studies solar physics, but has never published a single paper related to climate science or the link between the sun and the Earths climate. Making dramatic claims in a presentation to the UK's biggest climate denier group, the GWPF, is the most she appears to have done that's climate related.

This non expert as you so wish to call him simply to cast doubt on his paper is an expert in his own field. As an actuary it is vital that risk is fully understood so that correct assumptions can be made about the future. Actuaries help governments pension providers insurers etc understand the future so that correct policy decisions  can be made.

Edited November 30, 2018 by BornFromTheVoid
Keep the snarky comments out of it

[BornFromTheVoid]

3 hours ago, jethro said:

How do you peer review something that hasn't happened? 

Analysis, projections, predictions, etc can all be done on things that haven't happened yet. Science is all about the ability to both understand things, and then test that understanding by making predictions and seeing how well they turn out. Some predictions can have a stronger base is real science and predictive methods, others not so much.
You can find presentations from non-experts to support any viewpoint you like online. As such, peer review, while not perfect, is the best standard we have. If using a presentation as evidence, perhaps use one from a reputable expert in the area?

2 hours ago, jethro said:

Given what you study/studied at Uni, presuming that your career is/will be related, and the circle of people that you study/work with, I can see that the negativity of this topic would feature large. However, in general, day to day living I think you're very wrong. What I see in the world is a massive movement to use less, re-cycle more, look after the planet and reduce energy consumption. ALL of that is driven by the widespread knowledge and support for the climate change science. You're doing the vast majority of people an enormous dis-service.

I'm thinking more from my perspective of moderating on another site that has 10s of millions of subscribers. The moderators there include several psychologists and sociologists from across the world, and the danger of echo chambers is a very real problem for promoting and engendering extreme viewpoints.
Also, I have a life outside of academia and social media too, and still I see very few individuals doing much, some, yes, but certainly not the majority. We both are influenced by our social circles and both have different viewpoints, so to talk of doing a dis-service to the vast majority when using just your own perspective is hardly fair. 

42 minutes ago, jonboy said:

This non expert as you so wish to call him simply to cast doubt on his paper is an expert in his own field. As an actuary it is vital that risk is fully understood so that correct assumptions can be made about the future. Actuaries help governments pension providers insurers etc understand the future so that correct policy decisions  can be made.

Regardless of what you think, he's not an expert in climate science or the Maunder minimum. If he did his own analysis and got it published, then fine. But alas, that's not the case here.
There's a reason why people study and specialise for years to become professional researchers with expertise in a particular area. To repeat what I said to Jethro too, you can find presentations from non-experts to support any viewpoint you like online.

[jethro]

25 minutes ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

Analysis, projections, predictions, etc can all be done on things that haven't happened yet. Science is all about the ability to both understand things, and then test that understanding by making predictions and seeing how well they turn out. Some predictions can have a stronger base is real science and predictive methods, others not so much.
You can find presentations from non-experts to support any viewpoint you like online. As such, peer review, while not perfect, is the best standard we have. If using a presentation as evidence, perhaps use one from a reputable expert in the area?

I'm thinking more from my perspective of moderating on another site that has 10s of millions of subscribers. The moderators there include several psychologists and sociologists from across the world, and the danger of echo chambers is a very real problem for promoting and engendering extreme viewpoints.
Also, I have a life outside of academia and social media too, and still I see very few individuals doing much, some, yes, but certainly not the majority. We both are influenced by our social circles and both have different viewpoints, so to talk of doing a dis-service to the vast majority when using just your own perspective is hardly fair. 

Regardless of what you think, he's not an expert in climate science or the Maunder minimum. If he did his own analysis and got it published, then fine. But alas, that's not the case here.
There's a reason why people study and specialise for years to become professional researchers with expertise in a particular area. To repeat what I said to Jethro too, you can find presentations from non-experts to support any viewpoint you like online.

Hang on just a second, at what point have I expressed any view or opinion on this subject other than 'we haven't got a bleeding clue, not you, not I, not the experts' on whether a Grand Minimum is going to happen, let alone what the impact may or may not be. So please don't start accusing me of scouting around to find any nonsense to support my view. In order to promote some kind of discussion of this topic I did a 5 min google search of 'Impact of Dalton Minimum', reams of stuff came up, I grabbed a few links and posted them before shooting off to work, I even pointed out I'd only done quick scan read.

When this informal chatroom on a public forum reaches the point of 'extreme viewpoints'  (which given the topic, it's hard to see what possible extreme viewpoint there could be) then I can see there may be a problem. But generally, legally, extreme viewpoints is well covered by law and it includes things such as terrorism, inciting violence etc. Anything other than that is merely a difference of opinion, disagreeing with an opinion is fine, censoring and silencing isn't.

Yes we are both influenced in such a way, everyone is, however survey after survey supports what I said earlier. The vast majority of people in the UK support climate science and are/want to do their bit to minimise harm.

https://www.clientearth.org/british-public-supports-urgent-action-and-litigation-on-climate-change-poll-reveals/

http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/the-public-supports-uk-climate-leadership/

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/uk-climate-change-real-accept-majority-global-warming-poll-finds-a7909841.html

 

 

[JeffC]

OK, we all need to understand this isn't a "climate change" based thread it's a thread discussing (or trying to) how the solar minimum, be it a deep, grand minimum or just your bog standard run of the mill roughly 11 year jobby.

I accept that the baseline could be different this time to ones 100 years ago, but the predominant talk on here shouldn't be about AGW or CO2 levels. it should be on how the fractional changes in amounts of energy hitting our planet will manifest in terms of what we experience as weather and longer term climate.

Debating is one thing, having a pop at each other is another thing entirely.

If you disagree that's also fine, if you can back it up (nicely!) with facts and figures...that way more folk will read what's written instead of turning off because of folk having a go at each other.

here endeth my umpteenth plus one sermon...

 

Edited November 30, 2018 by JeffC

[Methuselah]

Anyway, freedom of speech is a two-way street; it isn't (or wasn't the last time I checked) a one-sided creation in which folks can air their views - without any fear of contradiction. That would be censorship!

It would also be about as interesting/exciting as watching a Jose Mourhino team in full flow!

[JeffC]

26 minutes ago, Ed Stone said:

Anyway, freedom of speech is a two-way street; it isn't (or wasn't the last time I checked) a one-sided creation in which folks can air their views - without any fear of contradiction. That would be censorship!

It would also be about as interesting/exciting as watching a Jose Mourhino team in full flow!

lol, no problem with freedom of speech, but just folk need to

a. not script something so as to give offence...

b. be big enough to enter into debate without taking offence...

c. not rise to any bait...

d. not exacerbate a situation...

 

 

[JeffC]

I refer to my previous comments regarding the discussion of AGW for or against, in isolation...if it is part of the discussion on how Solar minimum will affect climate and weather, and the interaction of today's CO2 against that of say pre-Industrial Revolution then fair enough, but please try not to make comments solely about AGW..

[BornFromTheVoid]

Ok everyone, back on topic please. And while the main focus of this thread is solar influences, please refrain from parroting climate contrarian talking points please, especially if you want to maintain the ability to keep posting here.

[jethro]

19 hours ago, tynevalleysnow said:

New solar activity forescast and it’s quite shocking. When or where is cycle 25? 

 

Anyone else find this chart and prediction exciting? If it happens, how lucky are we to live through a Grand Minimum, potentially interesting times ahead in our part of the world.

[Methuselah]

3 minutes ago, jethro said:

Anyone else find this chart and prediction exciting? If it happens, how lucky are we to live through a Grand Minimum, potentially interesting times ahead in our part of the world.

Absolutely I do...I've been hoping we would see one, since about 1968!

[tynevalleysnow]

7 minutes ago, jethro said:

Anyone else find this chart and prediction exciting? If it happens, how lucky are we to live through a Grand Minimum, potentially interesting times ahead in our part of the world.

The ramifications for our part of the world could be huge 

[Minus 10]

9 minutes ago, jethro said:

Anyone else find this chart and prediction exciting? If it happens, how lucky are we to live through a Grand Minimum, potentially interesting times ahead in our part of the world.

Very interesting Jethro, and a bit concerning, my main concern is large scale crop shortages, people can survivd the cold but not without food.

[jethro]

2 minutes ago, tynevalleysnow said:

The ramifications for our part of the world could be huge 

I've read a lot about previous Grand Minimums and the impact here, not always a snowy nirvana outcome, but the prospect of an increased potential for proper winters again fills me with utter joy

[Minus 10]

Just now, jethro said:

I've read a lot about previous Grand Minimums and the impact here, not always a snowy nirvana outcome, but the prospect of an increased potential for proper winters again fills me with utter joy

Also some harrowing stories too...

[jethro]

1 minute ago, Minus 10 said:

Very interesting Jethro, and a bit concerning, my main concern is large scale crop shortages, people can survivd the cold but not without food.

Agreed, it may cause large problems but I think it would be more a case of changing what we eat, rather than not having enough.

[jethro]

1 minute ago, Minus 10 said:

Also some harrowing stories too...

???

[Minus 10]

Just now, jethro said:

Agreed, it may cause large problems but I think it would be more a case of changing what we eat, rather than not having enough.

And learning to grow our own food, ie: self sustainable living...

[Minus 10]

Just now, jethro said:

???

480,000 died in ireland during the years 1740/1741...known as the great frost...Ireland only had a population of 2.4 million back then. Also in Jamestown, Usa, 1640, people turned to cannabilism because of famine, withches burned because the peoples superstition. Just two stories from many but I agree, im excited too, to be alive now, cant wait to see what the cosmic rays do to our dna...