All things Solar

[BethesdaWX]

One thing to point out....if the insinuations/predictions are true, (that the global climate will cool due to the predicted diminishing solar activity) then climatoligists will have to not only admit that a stronger solar influence is leading a "cooler than expected" result, but they will also have to go back to the previous several decades and account for the the stronger than expected solar influences that they've "poo-poo" upon relative to the global temps (mostly attaching themselves to the small TSI variance argument).

We have MUCH to learn about 'ole Sol wrt climatic impacts.....not to mention the interaction of the atmospheric/oceanic system and the moderating effect therein.....Oh....and the feedbacks!

Yet our fate is somehow sealed??? Only in the minds of the arrogant, IMO.

If we are indeed heading into another Maunder Minimum, we're in some Serious trouble, beginning with agriculture.

This is the problem with Our Understanding of the Sun, The Mechanisms Involved are Mostly Unknown, but they are Certainly Aligned in a Massive Positive Feedback to Solar Inflence within the climate system, the only proof we need is what happens in the Milancovitch Cycles, Temps Varying by 6-10C globally due to <1% changes in TSI over these cycles...

The Same Mechanisms Acting in the Milancovitch Cycles will Obviously Apply to Multi-Century Changes in Solar Output, both Direct and Indirect need to be Accounted For. A Tiny change in the Sun can Equate to Huge Changes in GCC over Long Periods of time, perhaps by 5-7% or more, which equates to 3-4W/m^2 of additional energy Gain/Loss! This Could Easily Bite us in the Azz if we're not careful. Long Term Changes are the only changes that really matter in regards to the Earth's overall Equilibrium. Lets not forget that on a Monthly Basis, OLR can vary by 40-80W/m^2...(Measured by the CPC and recognized by the IPCC), and by a basis of micro-fractional release of energy, is a rapid equilibriating mechanism.

Even the IPCC references these Unknown Solar Mechanisms in their "10% Chance" opinion that the Warming is not Caused By Humans, they even state it Directly....and they deny any effect of the PDO/AMO on Temperatures....so while I think they are Blind, clearly there are huge unknowns.

EDIT: Full Press Release Just Came Out, The Media is Hyping this like Crazy Now, So Don't believe all of this "Science Story of the Century" or "Immediate Ice Age" Bullcrap Being Thrown Around If you see it.

However This is going to be an Exciting Test for Our Theories on The Sun, beginning Between 2015-2020 or So is when we'd expect cooling to Begin in the Geomagnetic Flux Theory, but It wouldn't be a Major Drop Quickly (in 5-10yrs), but more Prolonged drop on a Multi-Decadal Scale, Not a 2012 Sequel.

NASA Scientist Dean Pasnell:

"We have some interesting hints that solar activity is associated with climate, but we don't have any reasons for that association," said Dean Pesnell, project scientist for NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO).

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/14/all-three-of-these-lines-of-research-to-point-to-the-familiar-sunspot-cycle-shutting-down-for-a-while/

http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~deforest/SPD-sunspot-release/SPD_solar_cycle_release.txt

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/14/ice_age/

So, we'll see what happens.

[hazwoper]

Some interesting stuff on the state of the sun

http://www.space.com...olar-cycle.html

Made front page of Yahoo this morning

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110614/ts_afp/usspacesun

[iceicebyebye]

We have MUCH to learn about 'ole Sol wrt climatic impacts.....not to mention the interaction of the atmospheric/oceanic system and the moderating effect therein.....Oh....and the feedbacks!

Yet our fate is somehow sealed??? Only in the minds of the arrogant, IMO.

So you are suggesting that solar variation will imminently be outweighing the forcing value of GHG emissions?

[VAwxman]

So you are suggesting that solar variation will imminently be outweighing the forcing value of GHG emissions?

That's not what I get out of his post at all. To me, he's only saying we don't know, which I think is a fair assessment.

[LakeEffectKing]

So you are suggesting that solar variation will imminently be outweighing the forcing value of GHG emissions?

Not sure how you get that from my statement......

I'm suggesting that there is enough lack of understanding with the solar, oceanic, and feedback systems wrt AGW, that the extreme doom and gloom scenarios are ineherently more speculative than conclusive, as others would suggest.

[Clifford]

It is too soon to call for 50+ years of a spotless sun (starting in the future, as the sunspots have certainly returned now).

I've seen some predictions that the next solar cycle 25 from about 2020 to 2030 may be weak, similar to the current cycle 24 from about 2010 to 2020. But, even those seem to be quite speculative. Any prediction about the cycle 26 after that (2030 to 2040) would be little better than a coin toss.

Over the next decade we will learn a lot about the interaction between the solar cycles and various climate feedback systems. However, there is the risk of masking serious underlying climate issues if we have a couple of decades of progressively weakening solar cycles.

[BethesdaWX]

So you are suggesting that solar variation will imminently be outweighing the forcing value of GHG emissions?

The Forcing Value is Irrelavent, it is the Feedback Value that matters. Direct Solar Forcing Via TSI Changes are Very Minor, but the Feedback is almost certainly extremely positive....only evidence we need are the Milancovitch Cycles. The Way The different solar energies Alter/modulate the Climate System is what gives the Sun its Indirect Power over the Climate System.

As for GHG Feedback, we'll find out soon enough that it is indeed a Negative feedback, not a positive feedback, to CO2/Methane increase....as in....changes within the climate system as an origin, in the troposphere, Rather than Changes from External Forcings & the resulting upper atmospheric feedbacks. Possibilites Include: Ozone Depletion/Heating Driven by Direct & Indirect Solar Forcings (Resulting in More UVA/UVB into the Internal Climate System), GCR's minor, but potentially longer term impacts on Low Level Cloud Cover, Both of these Drivers Greatly affecting OHC Values.

And There is Evidence of This Occuring now. How so?

Ozone depletion in the stratosphere Led to more UVA/UVB into the Climate System beginning in the 1970's..Potential Causes include CFC emissions, GCR's "burning away" the Ozone, and Volcanic Activity. OHC began to rise rapidly, coinciding perfectly with the Increase, and has since leveled off (equilibrium reached?). Its Funny Because UVA/UVB rays penetrate deeper into the Oceans than any other form of energy in the Climate System, at least that we know of.

Stratospheric Temperatures Have been Flat/slightly increasing since 1995. The theory is that GHG emissions should "slightly" cool the stratosphere. While not getting into the energy indifference between those two layers of the atmosphere, the problem with that assertion in the "slight" sense, or any sense, is the fact that the entire Theory is hinging upon physics that Violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, stating: Any closed system left to itself will continually deteriorate toward a more chaotic state. The idea of heat flow from atmospheric greenhouse gases to the warmer ground violates this principle. There would have to be a heat pump mechanism in perpetual motion in the atmosphere to transfer heat from a low to a high temperature reservoir, and such a machine cannot exist. All starting with the Misconception that the Earth's "Greenhouse Effect" (should not be called that) Behaves like an Actual Greenhouse. Yet it is rarely mentioned thay what causes the heat in a Greenhouse is the supression of Air Cooling, and not radiative transfer & re emission, this has been demonstrated.

But Even Assuming the AGW is Correct, the natural mechanism for the warming seen manifests in the profile of the warming itself.

Surface Warming faster than the LT is against what you can expect from AGW. The way to warm the Surface Faster than the LT is to increase SW incoming Radiation, thats really the only physically possible way to do it. And to verify this, we can see that the Earth has indeed, over-time, been imitting More OLR by several W/m^2. So that reflects warming as in a Non-GHE enhanced manner, caused by alterations within the climate system.

So, thankfully, simplistic, physical law breaking mechanisms presented by the IPCC fortunately will not come to fruition.

[iceicebyebye]

Not sure how you get that from my statement......

I'm suggesting that there is enough lack of understanding with the solar, oceanic, and feedback systems wrt AGW, that the extreme doom and gloom scenarios are ineherently more speculative than conclusive, as others would suggest.

The pressing risk is that AGW scenarios understate inputs and feedbacks...the outcomes you tag "doom and gloom" may end up looking moderate relative to eventual realities.

BAU ensures that our fate is indeed sealed.

[LakeEffectKing]

The pressing risk is that AGW scenarios understate inputs and feedbacks...the outcomes you tag "doom and gloom" may end up looking moderate relative to eventual realities.

BAU ensures that our fate is indeed sealed.

Totally disagree.Your perception of the current data is so far from mine that it's best that we end this conversation and turn to another topic where we may share some thoughts on where we can find some assemblence of common ground.

You a chocolate guy or a vanillia guy?

[tacoman25]

The pressing risk is that AGW scenarios understate inputs and feedbacks...the outcomes you tag "doom and gloom" may end up looking moderate relative to eventual realities.

BAU ensures that our fate is indeed sealed.

And what fate might that be?

So far, the more conservative projections have fared better, and I suspect that will continue to the case.

[iceicebyebye]

And what fate might that be?

The viability of the biosphere as human population heads to 9B, with BAU emission paths ensuring global temps on the higher end of projections...sea level rise and massive human dislocation, etc.

[iceicebyebye]

Totally disagree.Your perception of the current data is so far from mine that it's best that we end this conversation and turn to another topic where we may share some thoughts on where we can find some assemblence of common ground.

You a chocolate guy or a vanilla guy?

Vanilla...much higher albedo.

Not a data issue, but rather what we each feel molecules of CO2 are capable of...and whether we choose a path of mainstream or fringe science.

Cheers

[tacoman25]

The viability of the biosphere as human population heads to 9B, with BAU emission paths ensuring global temps on the higher end of projections...sea level rise and massive human dislocation, etc.

So the end of the world then?

[iceicebyebye]

So the end of the world then?

No - the world will be fine...the viability of humans within the biosphere is another matter.

[tacoman25]

No - the world will be fine...the viability of humans within the biosphere is another matter.

Well, you and I are human...so you are insinuating global warming means the end of the world for us. And you are saying it's already set in stone. Some might call that alarmist.

[tacoman25]

The end is nigh.

http://www.liveindia.com/mayacalendar/24sep08.html

[VAwxman]

with BAU emission paths ensuring global temps on the higher end of projections...

So when will these "higher end of projections" verify? I'm curious, since we've been near or lower than the low end estimates for awhile now.

[Isotherm]

So when will these "higher end of projections" verify? I'm curious, since we've been near or lower than the low end estimates for awhile now.

I have to laugh at the article posted earlier saying "an extended solar minimum will not be enough to offset GHG emission over the coming century." So they believe that a trace atmospheric gas which has shown little correlation to temperatures over the past 15 years will overpower the Sun's influence, a star that allows us to survive and initiates all meteorological processes.

I also somewhat disagree with their conclusion that the 2000-2010 period saw no global warming due to the sunspot minimum. The sun was still pretty active in the early 2000s, up until about 2007. The most likely culprit of leveling global temps 2000-2007 is the gradually reversing PDO.

With the PDO continuing to trend colder, the AMO probably having reached its peak, now on the downswing, in conjunction with this solar minimum, I'd personally be stunned if we saw any warming over the coming decade, and expect a decent cooling period to take hold. If global temps held steady 2000-2007 with an active sun, decreasing PDO, they'll certainly decrease with a negative PDO, AMO, few sunspots, and increased global volcanic activity. If I'm wrong, which to me even if temps remain steady over the coming 10-15 years in the face of all these cooling factors, I'll have to revisit my stance on AGW. But so far, I've been satisfied with the position that the climate pendulum is primarily natural.

[WeatherRusty]

I have to laugh at the article posted earlier saying "an extended solar minimum will not be enough to offset GHG emission over the coming century." So they believe that a trace atmospheric gas which has shown little correlation to temperatures over the past 15 years will overpower the Sun's influence, a star that allows us to survive and initiates all meteorological processes.

I also somewhat disagree with their conclusion that the 2000-2010 period saw no global warming due to the sunspot minimum. The sun was still pretty active in the early 2000s, up until about 2007. The most likely culprit of leveling global temps 2000-2007 is the gradually reversing PDO.

With the PDO continuing to trend colder, the AMO probably having reached its peak, now on the downswing, in conjunction with this solar minimum, I'd personally be stunned if we saw any warming over the coming decade, and expect a decent cooling period to take hold. If global temps held steady 2000-2007 with an active sun, decreasing PDO, they'll certainly decrease with a negative PDO, AMO, few sunspots, and increased global volcanic activity. If I'm wrong, which to me even if temps remain steady over the coming 10-15 years in the face of all these cooling factors, I'll have to revisit my stance on AGW. But so far, I've been satisfied with the position that the climate pendulum is primarily natural.

They "believe it" because the numbers generated by simple physical measurements and very well established physical equations indicate as much. It's not a belief, it's a result of measured parameters and application of physical principles.

[skierinvermont]

They "believe it" because the numbers generated by simple physical measurements and very well established physical equations indicate as much. It's not a belief, it's a result of measured parameters and application of physical principles.

People act as if this is a sport where qualitative opinions have more merit than physics.

[Isotherm]

They "believe it" because the numbers generated by simple physical measurements and very well established physical equations indicate as much. It's not a belief, it's a result of measured parameters and application of physical principles.

Yes, that's all there is to it, just a few physics equations and we have our entire climate system figured out. I've noticed that when folks try to put an exact number on something as erratic, dynamic, and unpredictable as global climate, they usually fail. Your right, it's not belief, it's arrogance.

[skierinvermont]

Yes, that's all there is to it, just a few physics equations and we have our entire climate system figured out. I've noticed that when folks try to put an exact number on something as erratic, dynamic, and unpredictable as global climate, they usually fail. Your right, it's not belief, it's arrogance.

These same physics equations and models accurately predict the temperature of our own planet within a degree or two as well as other planets. I guess that's just pure coincidence.

[iceicebyebye]

Well, you and I are human...so you are insinuating global warming means the end of the world for us. And you are saying it's already set in stone. Some might call that alarmist.

Unless BAU changes, it is indeed set in stone. Of course you may have unseen societal or technological variables, or a sufficiently sized volcanic influence, but otherwise BAU and population growth, with it's inherent effect on energy utilization, leads to the noted paths.

You may certainly choose to designate this "alarmist"....That is more so your reaction to the challenge it presents to your mental model and paradigms...What you call alarmism, I simply see as eventual reality.

But the world is still capable of continuing without humans, or with a vastly smaller population.

[iceicebyebye]

So when will these "higher end of projections" verify? I'm curious, since we've been near or lower than the low end estimates for awhile now.

Roughly, by end of century...perhaps sooner if feedbacks have their way.

[tacoman25]

Roughly, by end of century...perhaps sooner if feedbacks have their way.

Assuming only positive feedback favoring warming, and no negative feedbacks slowing warming.

[WeatherRusty]

Assuming only positive feedback favoring warming, and no negative feedbacks slowing warming.

What it assumes is NET positive feedback just like that evident in all incidences of past significant climate change.

[WeatherRusty]

These same physics equations and models accurately predict the temperature of our own planet within a degree or two as well as other planets. I guess that's just pure coincidence.

In addition to what Skier mentioned which is obviously correct, I was responding to the suggestion that it is some kind of arbitrary assumption that co2 forcing easily outweighs known solar variability. it is no assumption or mere belief.

[VAwxman]

In addition to what Skier mentioned which is obviously correct, I was responding to the suggestion that it is some kind of arbitrary assumption that co2 forcing easily outweighs known solar variability. it is no assumption or mere belief.

For me, the key part of your post is when you cite "known solar variability". I personally think there is a lot we don't yet know about the sun and how it affects climate, going beyond TSI. Now that doesn't mean I think it is certain to overwhelm what CO2 effects exist, but that we just don't know yet.

[tacoman25]

For me, the key part of your post is when you cite "known solar variability". I personally think there is a lot we don't yet know about the sun and how it affects climate, going beyond TSI. Now that doesn't mean I think it is certain to overwhelm what CO2 effects exist, but that we just don't know yet.

Rusty would say you are just going along with the "manufactured doubt machine". Heh...I call it acknowledging reality and the limitations of science, especially in this field.

[ORH_wxman]

Rusty would say you are just going along with the "manufactured doubt machine". Heh...I call it acknowledging reality and the limitations of science, especially in this field.

There is no doubt that solar stuff is the frontier of climate science. We aren't even sure on the effects of multi-decadal variability influence on the solar cycles. We know the 11 year stuff with TSI that is repeated over and over again, but there is currently research ongoing about how multi-decadal solar mins and maxes might produce amplified effects on global climate. We just don't know enough yet about it to make any claims. Most of the very pro-AGW agurments will try and minimize previous temperature changes as to reduce the possible effects of solar WRT LIA. But even going before that we saw pretty large spikes in temperatures during the MWP. We don't have sunspot data back then, but its likely that most of these temp changes cannot be attributed to TSI.

The solar stuff has become more interesting as we learn more about it little by little.