How will Solar Minimum affect weather and climate Take 2?

[JeffC]

Thought I'd resurrect this thread.

Do people feel we have seen the fingerprint of a solar minimum?

Certainly noctilucent clouds have appeared, we have seen a more meridonal than zonal set up flow-wise.

Anything else?

[Cheshire Freeze]

4 minutes ago, JeffC said:

Thought I'd resurrect this thread.

Do people feel we have seen the fingerprint of a solar minimum?

Certainly noctilucent clouds have appeared, we have seen a more meridonal than zonal set up flow-wise.

Anything else?

I think this coming winter will be a test- obviously solar minimum doesn't guarantee cold winters but given the run of mild winters we've endured recently, you'd expect to see one cold one around the minimum.

[JeffC]

17 hours ago, CreweCold said:

I think this coming winter will be a test- obviously solar minimum doesn't guarantee cold winters but given the run of mild winters we've endured recently, you'd expect to see one cold one around the minimum.

Aye, you'd think the ducks would be lining up favourably!!

[JeffC]

I've heard that volcanic and seismic activity is also influenced by solar minima,does anyone have any data to back that up please, or is it anecdotal?

Have we seen an increase over "normal" levels?

If so, what's the mechanism? 

There was a theory somewhere, that the SC is affected by gravitational effects from the planet's within the solar system, if so could that be what impacts upon overall seismic activity?

[Devonian]

1 hour ago, JeffC said:

I've heard that volcanic and seismic activity is also influenced by solar minima,does anyone have any data to back that up please, or is it anecdotal?

Have we seen an increase over "normal" levels?

If so, what's the mechanism? 

There was a theory somewhere, that the SC is affected by gravitational effects from the planet's within the solar system, if so could that be what impacts upon overall seismic activity?

Is bunk. Or, rather, is an effect like that of a pound coin in a pocket has on the length of a human lifetime.

[Gael_Force]

46 minutes ago, Devonian said:

Is bunk.

Is a bold statement. Solar cycle science is still very much an ongoing work in terms of understanding the correlations between geophysical processes and the influences from solar activity.

https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/st07500u.html

[Methuselah]

8 minutes ago, Gael_Force said:

Is a bold statement. Solar cycle science is still very much an ongoing work in terms of understanding the correlations between geophysical processes and the influences from solar activity.

https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/st07500u.html

But, sometimes, especially when any effect (when compared to the stresses and strains arising from the planet's internal processes) is only ever going to be minuscule, one wonders whether such studies are worthwhile...?

Though, of course, should what they're really testing turn out to be the efficacy of some kind of newfangled 'classified' instrumentation, it would be a different matter entirely...?

[Devonian]

1 hour ago, Gael_Force said:

Is a bold statement. Solar cycle science is still very much an ongoing work in terms of understanding the correlations between geophysical processes and the influences from solar activity.

https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/st07500u.html

Gael F, I highlighted this part "There was a theory somewhere, that the SC is affected by gravitational effects from the planet's within the solar system," because its bunk.

 

You've replied  with a paper talking about a solar effect rather than a planetary one. I wont be using the word bunk for that as the sun is the big thing in this solar system. How big is the sun's effect on climate, or volcanoes? It's small but, maybe, non negligible.

[JeffC]

2 hours ago, Devonian said:

Is bunk. Or, rather, is an effect like that of a pound coin in a pocket has on the length of a human lifetime.

OK maybe, but that's one facet - does the interplanetary gravitational fluctuation make any difference to solar activity? That can be hypothesised either way unless someone has an absolute answer

BUT the other bit is does the Solar cycle have any seismic effect on the Earth? Is there empirical data showing any correlation at all?

 

Edit - @devonian - our posts crossed mid flight!

Edited July 13, 2019 by JeffC

[feb1991blizzard]

4 hours ago, Devonian said:

Gael F, I highlighted this part "There was a theory somewhere, that the SC is affected by gravitational effects from the planet's within the solar system," because its bunk.

 

You've replied  with a paper talking about a solar effect rather than a planetary one. I wont be using the word bunk for that as the sun is the big thing in this solar system. How big is the sun's effect on climate, or volcanoes? It's small but, maybe, non negligible.

Really?   Try being on this earth when it becomes a red dwarf and see what kind of 'small' effect the sun has on climate.

Edited July 13, 2019 by feb1991blizzard

[Methuselah]

6 minutes ago, feb1991blizzard said:

Really?   Try being on this earth when it becomes a red dwarf and see what kind of 'small' effect the sun has on climate.

I take it you mean 'red giant', feb? But your response is silly, anyhow...

[Weather-history]

5 minutes ago, feb1991blizzard said:

Really?   Try being on this earth when it becomes a red dwarf and see what kind of 'small' effect the sun has on climate.

You mean a red giant?

It is likely to end up as a white dwarf

 

[Devonian]

15 minutes ago, feb1991blizzard said:

Really?   Try being on this earth when it becomes a red dwarf and see what kind of 'small' effect the sun has on climate.

 

It should be obvious this thread isn't about when the sun nears the end of its life?  I meant that the effect of changes to the solar cycle (s?) on climate is minimal over the time scales we are talking about viz years, decades, centuries.

Edited July 13, 2019 by Devonian

[feb1991blizzard]

1 minute ago, Devonian said:

 

It should be obvious this thread isn't about when the sun nears the end of its life?  I mean that effect of changes to the solar cycle (s?) on climate is minimal over the time scales we are talking about viz decades, centuries.

Ok then - so how far in to the future is it futile worrying about climate change's potential effect on the planet - it seems like the goalposts are moved all the time, should we worry about what happens in 1000 years if we can get the next 100 under control?, plus you cant imagine we know everything about something so hot we will never get anywhere near it so who knows what might happen wrt its output / effect on earth.

[Methuselah]

5 minutes ago, feb1991blizzard said:

Ok then - so how far in to the future is it futile worrying about climate change's potential effect on the planet - it seems like the goalposts are moved all the time, should we worry about what happens in 1000 years if we can get the next 100 under control?, plus you cant imagine we know everything about something so hot we will never get anywhere near it so who knows what might happen wrt its output / effect on earth.

Nah...the goalposts have been fixed all along, feb. It's hardly the groundsman's fault, if the opposition's strikers all have two left feet!

[feb1991blizzard]

2 minutes ago, Ed Stone said:

Nah...the goalposts have been fixed all along, feb. It's hardly the groundsman's fault, if the opposition's strikers all have two left feet!

Can't remember what update it was but one of Gav's weather vids updates in the run up to either last winter or the winter before showed the striking effects by way of analogues on Northern hemisphere winter patterns when the winter is between 6 and 18 months after a solar minimum, blocking was much more prevalent.

[Derecho]

 

51 minutes ago, feb1991blizzard said:

Ok then - so how far in to the future is it futile worrying about climate change's potential effect on the planet - it seems like the goalposts are moved all the time, should we worry about what happens in 1000 years if we can get the next 100 under control?, plus you cant imagine we know everything about something so hot we will never get anywhere near it so who knows what might happen wrt its output / effect on earth.

Where is the evidence that the goalposts have moved? The climate models have if anything underestimated the warming slightly and we are not reducing emissions at the moment - they are currently going through the worst case scenario.

38 minutes ago, feb1991blizzard said:

Can't remember what update it was but one of Gav's weather vids updates in the run up to either last winter or the winter before showed the striking effects by way of analogues on Northern hemisphere winter patterns when the winter is between 6 and 18 months after a solar minimum, blocking was much more prevalent.

Not always the case though, the early 1910s saw a prolonged solar minimum yet the winters were zonal with a positive NAO dominating. There are so many factors that affect regional temperature variability over seasonal time scales, the impact of sunspot variations can be overwhelmed by factors such as Atlantic SSTs and ENSO.

What we can be certain of is that global temperatures will carry on increasing regardless of what the solar cycles do.Given that global temperatures are increasing even more rapidly since the grand maximum in 1985 only underlines that the argument has long sailed. The additional heat over our atmosphere from the GhG effect is far overwhelming any impact sunspot activity may have. It increases the risk of notably cold winters over NW Europe and SE USA but even that link is dubious at best.

[Cheshire Freeze]

Almost 100% of our energy originates from the sun. I find it rather churlish that some people flat out poo poo the idea of fluctuations in this energy source affecting earth's climate.

[Devonian]

7 hours ago, CreweCold said:

Almost 100% of our energy originates from the sun. I find it rather churlish that some people flat out poo poo the idea of fluctuations in this energy source affecting earth's climate.

Do you notice the sun fluctuate and the climate follow it? No, you don't. Does the sun's output vary? Yes, by tiny fractions of a percent - it really is a middling star of steady output and thankfully so.

[Devonian]

14 hours ago, feb1991blizzard said:

Ok then - so how far in to the future is it futile worrying about climate change's potential effect on the planet - it seems like the goalposts are moved all the time, should we worry about what happens in 1000 years if we can get the next 100 under control?, plus you cant imagine we know everything about something so hot we will never get anywhere near it so who knows what might happen wrt its output / effect on earth.

I'm not as complacent about the future as you are.

I also feel responsible for what I do, and I know that if, (as a species), we were both more responsible, more grown up and more intelligent we could all live happy lives without needlessly and carelessly polluting the oceans, land and atmosphere and needlessly despoiling the biosphere beyond recognition. I can't just wave that away I'm afraid.

Edited July 14, 2019 by Devonian

[Methuselah]

There are myriad parameters that can precipitate a sudden switch, from one state of quasi-stability to another, of which the repeated oscillations between glacial and interglacial climates clearly testifies; the Earth-system is, after all (just like any other system that works according to the Laws of Thermodynamics) always looking to occupy the lowest available energy-state...

And we know from experience that what's the most 'efficient', from the unthinking thermodynamic perspective, may not be of much use to us humans...we apply novel stresses and strains to our already precarious climate-system at our peril:

 

[Derecho]

2 hours ago, Devonian said:

Do you notice the sun fluctuate and the climate follow it? No, you don't. Does the sun's output vary? Yes, by tiny fractions of a percent - it really is a middling star of steady output and thankfully so.

Exactly and that's what deniers cannot seem to grasp... that sunspot variations are so miniscule in the grander scheme of things. Milankovitch cycles are far more important but they operate on timescales of thousands of years.

Right now we should be going through a period of decreasing global temperatures, yet they are increasing at a faster rate then ever, even more then the PETM. I find it churlish that people dismiss the impact of the GhG effect given how much solar radiation we are trapping in the atmosphere.. and how fast global temperatures are increasing.

Edited July 14, 2019 by Quicksilver1989

[DAVID SNOW]

44 minutes ago, Quicksilver1989 said:

Exactly and that's what deniers cannot seem to grasp... that sunspot variations are so miniscule in the grander scheme of things. Milankovitch cycles are far more important but they operate on timescales of thousands of years.

Right now we should be going through a period of decreasing global temperatures, yet they are increasing at a faster rate then ever, even more then the PETM. I find it churlish that people dismiss the impact of the GhG effect given how much solar radiation we are trapping in the atmosphere.. and how fast global temperatures are increasing.

How will solar minimum affect weather and climate take 7?

Its an interesting question and one that cannot be destroyed by those with closed minds.

[Derecho]

4 minutes ago, DAVID SNOW said:

How will solar minimum affect weather and climate take 7?

Its an interesting question and one that cannot be destroyed by those with closed minds.

Ironic you refer to me as having a closed mind when you refuse to accept that anthropogenic GhG emissions are causing a dangerous amount of warming...

Regional climate there is some evidence it can increase the chance of colder winters over certain areas such as NW Europe but globally its impact is dwarfed by the increasing temperatures from GhG emissions. I have even done a dissertation on the matter! so I think describing me as having a closed mind is a very poor description given the amount of time I've spent reading on the subject and the amount of time I've spent studying global climate overall.

[Methuselah]

The sun's output has been in decline for almost 35 years, yet, throughout all of that that time, the globe has continued to warm...?

Now, I know what 'thermal inertia' is...but a time-lag of 35 years and counting? Are you kidding?

I guess my mind must have closed-down during the wait ?