FreeRain Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150709092955.htmThanks for the link. First time I'm reading about a 400 year solar cycle and an interesting explanation for a grand solar maximum and a grand solar minimum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chubbs Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 Solar radiance can certainty have a short/long term impact. I believe NASA wrote a paper regarding TSI and it's overall temperature impact. A 50 year Maunder min, if the climate was in radiative balance, could have a 0.3C impact decadally on the global temperature. However, the impacts would be felt dis proportionally in the Northern Hemisphere. In the grand scheme of global warming- 0.3 C is not really enough to offset the really poor effects. Particularly if ECS is truly around 3C-4C. http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/ This modeling analysis, using RCP scenario 4.5, indicates a Maunder Minimum (MM) would slow down but not stop global warming. Temperatures catch up to the non-MM case when the sun returns to normal so long term effects are minimal. A Maunder Minimum could give some time though for improved mitigation/adaptation if it was used wisely and not squandered. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/jma/meehl_grand_solar_2013.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stadiumwave Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 This modeling analysis, using RCP scenario 4.5, indicates a Maunder Minimum (MM) would slow down but not stop global warming. Temperatures catch up to the non-MM case when the sun returns to normal so long term effects are minimal. A Maunder Minimum could give some time though for improved mitigation/adaptation if it was used wisely and not squandered. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/jma/meehl_grand_solar_2013.pdf Agree. The effects would be interesting to observe. And I'm like you...it would be a gift from God if we use it wisely but I'm not sure we will if it happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nflwxman Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 Agree. The effects would be interesting to observe. And I'm like you...it would be a gift from God if we use it wisely but I'm not sure we will if it happens. I guess we will know by the middle of this upcoming cycle 2019 or so if we are getting into a decadal min. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTRWx Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150709092955.htm There's sure a bunch of absolutes in that article! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stadiumwave Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 There's sure a bunch of absolutes in that article! Yea...the projections made in that study are based on a climate model. We know climate model projections are shaky ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTRWx Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 Yea...the projections made in that study are based on a climate model. We know climate model projections are shaky ground. If any of the claims are true, you would think that similar solar levels compared to a Maunder Minimum could be deduced without needing a climate model. I don't know what to think! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTRWx Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 Just what the doctor ordered! http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/07/14/news-about-an-imminent-mini-ice-age-is-trending-but-its-not-true/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chubbs Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 This blog goes into some detail - A 60-80% reduction in solar cycle activity is estimated to lower solar forcing by roughly 0.1 W/m2 - similar to only a couple of years of CO2 build-up - and any modest relief would be temporary as CO2 will persist in the atmosphere long after the sun has returned to normal. http://climatephys.org/2015/07/12/a-blessing-from-a-star-little-ice-ages-and-the-fate-of-climate/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvantHiatus Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 This is just awful, it's on the verge of going mainstream and killing our chances. The 2008 minimum contributed to a sense that solar forcing was more important as a climate driver than it really is. The main driver of that event was ocean heat sequestration caused by la nina/-PDO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisf97212 Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 This is just awful, it's on the verge of going mainstream and killing our chances. The 2008 minimum contributed to a sense that solar forcing was more important as a climate driver than it really is. The main driver of that event was ocean heat sequestration caused by la nina/-PDO. Where do you come up with this stuff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stadiumwave Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 This is just awful, it's on the verge of going mainstream and killing our chances. The 2008 minimum contributed to a sense that solar forcing was more important as a climate driver than it really is. The main driver of that event was ocean heat sequestration caused by la nina/-PDO. I totally disagree. History would argue against that assertion. But the question is in what way has solar had an impact? Certainly cooling has taken place in the past but is it due to other factors that low solar triggers: increased volcanic activity, increased high latitude blocking, ocean oscillation affects...etc. The study of the impacts of solar activity on the climate is still in it's infancy. So, I do not think we really know. It might even be that there are times it has large impacts & at other minimal. Either way it's way to premature to say "The 2008 minimum contributed to a sense that solar forcing was more important as a climate driver than it really is." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvantHiatus Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 What a shame, you guys are still living in the past. Ever think that the cooling and heating processes were hollistic and evolving multiple sources? The only way to get cooling when CO2 is spiking 2ppm a year is to have a perfect culmination of factors such as low solar and favorable ocean dynamics. Those days are over tho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stadiumwave Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 What a shame, you guys are still living in the past. Ever think that the cooling and heating processes were hollistic and evolving multiple sources? The only way to get cooling when CO2 is spiking 2ppm a year is to have a perfect culmination of factors such as low solar and favorable ocean dynamics. Those days are over tho. Are you implying that nature has zero influence now? If so then science does not support your subjective thesis.AGW offsets or a better word might be dilutes natural cooling factors. For instance, global temps declined more during the 1946-1977 period from natural drivers that now would have less of a cooling affect due to AGW. Same factors may only produce a hiatus now due to greenhouse gas increase. But my point is the natural drivers ARE NOT overwhelmed by AGW where they have zero affect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvantHiatus Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 Natural drivers will always be influential but the system will start to fundamentally shift as a whole, changing the natural factors into a more pliocene mode. We've seen small previews of this process in 2014/2015 with the enlargement of the hadley cell, especially on the Euroasian side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stadiumwave Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 Natural drivers will always be influential but the system will start to fundamentally shift as a whole, changing the natural factors into a more pliocene mode. We've seen small previews of this process in 2014/2015 with the enlargement of the hadley cell, especially on the Euroasian side. Hmm...ok. At least you have it all figured out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvantHiatus Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 Hmm...ok. At least you have it all figured out. It's fully supported by the Francis/Vavrus paper. http://marine.rutgers.edu/~francis/pres/Francis_Vavrus_2012GL051000_pub.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StudentOfClimatology Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 You didn't read the Francis Vavrus paper, did you? It's not a paleo paper at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAD_Wedge_NC Posted July 18, 2015 Share Posted July 18, 2015 You didn't read the Francis Vavrus paper, did you? It's not a paleo paper at all. From everything I have seen over the last few months, I would have to say no....he doesn't read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvantHiatus Posted July 18, 2015 Share Posted July 18, 2015 Even if it was a shadey way to present, it's necessary because the stakes are too high. Let's not get back into the semantics debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FallsLake Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 Just maybe we see the first spotless day of 2015 soon. But, I've seen it get close a few other times. http://www.spaceweather.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fantom X Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 We've had a few spotless days in 2016 and the "peak" during this solar cycle was much lower than an average peak.. I'm reading about a possible even lower peak during cycle 25 and possibly a minimum mimicking the Dalton minimum by 2023 thru 2033 range. Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sophisticated Skeptic Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 Some aspects are being discussed in the Science / Tech section http://www.americanwx.com/bb/index.php/topic/48395-is-the-sun-dying/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WXinCanton Posted July 5, 2016 Share Posted July 5, 2016 She's blank! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ma blizzard Posted July 5, 2016 Share Posted July 5, 2016 She's blank! yep .. currently a 12 day spotless streak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelathos Posted July 5, 2016 Share Posted July 5, 2016 yep .. currently a 12 day spotless streak A number of spotless days not seen since 2010. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fantom X Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 Would this be considered a little too early to start the spotless streak or is this common as we near the "Valley" of the solar cycle ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinook Posted August 27, 2016 Share Posted August 27, 2016 This scientific abstract claims that solar activity has a direct impact on Earth's cloud cover http://m.phys.org/news/2016-08-solar-impact-earth-cloud.html "The solar eruptions are known to shield Earth's atmosphere from cosmic rays. However the new study, published in Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, shows that the global cloud cover is simultaneously reduced, supporting the idea that cosmic rays are important for cloud formation. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted August 28, 2016 Share Posted August 28, 2016 17 hours ago, Chinook said: This scientific abstract claims that solar activity has a direct impact on Earth's cloud cover http://m.phys.org/news/2016-08-solar-impact-earth-cloud.html "The solar eruptions are known to shield Earth's atmosphere from cosmic rays. However the new study, published in Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, shows that the global cloud cover is simultaneously reduced, supporting the idea that cosmic rays are important for cloud formation. " Also from the PhysOrg press release " The effect from Forbush decreases on clouds is too brief to have any impact on long-term temperature changes". The observed long-term global warming isn't due to the Sun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinook Posted August 28, 2016 Share Posted August 28, 2016 Oh yeah, sure. The greenhouse gases put a forcing on the atmosphere of something like 2.936 W/m2. Certainly greenhouse gases are an important factor in the long term temperature trend. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.