All things Solar

[Strongbad]

So we're still within their prediction range?

Over on WesternWx a few members are freaking out about this spike, saying it takes away from the possibility of a Grand Minimum down the road. I figured I'd come here where there are more solar experts to help shed light on things

Are they actually looking for a Grand Minimum? I would think that to be the last thing anybody wants unless they like slower growth, more dead due to cold temperatures, famine due to poor crop yields, etc. I hope they would be excited by the "spike"?

[aslkahuna]

I'm not too sure why there is so much excitement about the current uptick in activity in either direction since such upswings in activity or spikes are normal. At least they have been during the 5 cycles I have followed. Unequal distributioon of sunspots between hemispheres is also common-not too long ago it was the SOUTHERN hemisphere that was more active.

Steve

[The_Global_Warmer]

Are they actually looking for a Grand Minimum? I would think that to be the last thing anybody wants unless they like slower growth, more dead due to cold temperatures, famine due to poor crop yields, etc. I hope they would be excited by the "spike"?

I don't think that is going to be an issue unless the suns output just falls off for decades on end.

[WeatherRusty]

Are they actually looking for a Grand Minimum? I would think that to be the last thing anybody wants unless they like slower growth, more dead due to cold temperatures, famine due to poor crop yields, etc. I hope they would be excited by the "spike"?

Of course none of those cold related effects would become reality in the event of a Grand Minimum. Increased greenhouse warming over about a seven year period is sufficient to equal the loss in energy received from the Sun during solar minimum. Therefor there would be no prolonged surface exposure to a net lowered downward energy from the combined solar + atmosphere radiators.

Also, this would have nothing to do with feedbacks, it is a direct consequence of the relative strength between absorbed surface radiation 240W/m^2 / 1000 ( the average solar decrease at solar minimum ) = -0.24W of forcing and that derived by roughly 7-10 years accumulation of CO2 with CO2 increasing >=2ppm/year. Remember a doubling of CO2 gives a forcing equaling 3.7W/m^2.

Solar variation can not compete with greenhouse gas warming long term.

[LakeEffectKing]

Of course none of those cold related effects would become reality in the event of a Grand Minimum. Increased greenhouse warming over about a seven year period is sufficient to equal the loss in energy received from the Sun during solar minimum. Therefor there would be no prolonged surface exposure to a net lowered downward energy from the combined solar + atmosphere radiators.

Also, this would have nothing to do with feedbacks, it is a direct consequence of the relative strength between absorbed surface radiation 240W/m^2 / 1000 ( the average solar decrease at solar minimum ) = -0.24W of forcing and that derived by roughly 7-10 years accumulation of CO2 with CO2 increasing >=2ppm/year. Remember a doubling of CO2 gives a forcing equaling 3.7W/m^2.

Solar variation can not compete with greenhouse gas warming long term.

That is.....IF you believe TSI is the only solar factor that goes into the general climate equation....we still have much to learn...and your statements seem to utterly discount the potential that what we don't know about other solar influences can just be thrown out.

I've said this before and I'll say it again, as a system changes, so to does the reaction to the system to EACH and every parameter (the spider web analogy)....tweak it a bit, and it impacts the system as a whole....And IMO, it is naive to take the default position of discounting that of which we don't know (and there is certainly an enormous amount of unknown, especially a system in flux on varying timescales)....enough to make such incredibly bold assersions regarding a change in ONE (of the countless) interactions within the system....based on ONE physical property, but countless, marginally useful, GCM's.

[WeatherRusty]

That is.....IF you believe TSI is the only solar factor that goes into the general climate equation....we still have much to learn...and your statements seem to utterly discount the potential that what we don't know about other solar influences can just be thrown out.

I've said this before and I'll say it again, as a system changes, so to does the reaction to the system to EACH and every parameter (the spider web analogy)....tweak it a bit, and it impacts the system as a whole....And IMO, it is naive to take the default position of discounting that of which we don't know (and there is certainly an enormous amount of unknown, especially a system in flux on varying timescales)....enough to make such incredibly bold assersions regarding a change in ONE (of the countless) interactions within the system....based on ONE physical property, but countless, marginally useful, GMC's.

I am merely comparing the forcing between solar variation and that given by CO2 based on energy received at the surface by both sources BEFORE FEEDBACK. If solar radiation absorbed at the surface decreases only by 0.24/m^2 we will not be freezing our you know whats off as long as current rates of CO2 increase continue.

The argument that we shouldn't discount what we do not know is not science. Science can only work with what we do know. You can play the ignorance card forever.

[skierinvermont]

I am merely comparing the forcing between solar variation and that given by CO2 based on energy received at the surface by both sources BEFORE FEEDBACK. If solar radiation absorbed at the surface decreases only by 0.24/m^2 we will not be freezing our you know whats off as long as current rates of CO2 increase continue.

The argument that we shouldn't discount what we do not know is not science. Science can only work with what we do know. You can play the ignorance card forever.

'we have much to learn' = be quiet

[LakeEffectKing]

'we have much to learn' = be quiet

No, it means his statements, IMO, should allow for a bit of uncertainty (so as to not come off arrogant, as you yourself have), such as "with what we know about the sun currently...." And your interpretations of my statement are wrong, and divisive, especially when not addressing YOU.

And Rusty, when you KNOW there is uncertainty about various direct or indirect forcings (as with the Sun and it's climatic impacts), objective science very regularly allows for such uncertainty, and acknowledges it. Your previous statement, however, does not, hence, misrepresents the degree of knowledge we think we have of the Solar/Climate interactions.

[WeatherRusty]

No, it means his statements, IMO, should allow for a bit of uncertainty (so as to not come off arrogant, as you yourself have), such as "with what we know about the sun currently...." And your interpretations of my statement are wrong, and divisive, especially when not addressing YOU.

And Rusty, when you KNOW there is uncertainty about various direct or indirect forcings (as with the Sun and it's climatic impacts), objective science very regularly allows for such uncertainty, and acknowledges it. Your previous statement, however, does not, hence, misrepresents the degree of knowledge we think we have of the Solar/Climate interactions.

Ok, I acknowledge uncertainty. How does that change anything? The numerical values and relative factors I stated above represent the best determination the applicable sciences have to offer with little reason to suspect they are far off the mark. Pretty basic stuff really.

[gracetoyou]

Of course none of those cold related effects would become reality in the event of a Grand Minimum. Increased greenhouse warming over about a seven year period is sufficient to equal the loss in energy received from the Sun during solar minimum. Therefor there would be no prolonged surface exposure to a net lowered downward energy from the combined solar + atmosphere radiators.

Also, this would have nothing to do with feedbacks, it is a direct consequence of the relative strength between absorbed surface radiation 240W/m^2 / 1000 ( the average solar decrease at solar minimum ) = -0.24W of forcing and that derived by roughly 7-10 years accumulation of CO2 with CO2 increasing >=2ppm/year. Remember a doubling of CO2 gives a forcing equaling 3.7W/m^2.

Solar variation can not compete with greenhouse gas warming long term.

This is hilarious & is also an example of the arrogance that "some" (not all) of the AGW believers that act like everything is just so simple, factual, & known. We honestly do know VERY LITTLE about our very complex climate...certainly not enough to be so arrogant & act like you hold all the cards.

Good grief! This gets on my last nerve.

[skierinvermont]

failure to understand = humble

understanding = arrogance

got it.

[WeatherRusty]

This is hilarious & is also an example of the arrogance that "some" (not all) of the AGW believers that act like everything is just so simple, factual, & known. We honestly do know VERY LITTLE about our very complex climate...certainly not enough to be so arrogant & act like you hold all the cards.

Good grief! This gets on my last nerve.

Since you can't address the issue, you attack me. Fine. Par for the course.

Anyone....where are the flaws and unknowns in what I stated. Be specific. If you can't, then that indicates to me you don't have a clue about the relative values given for solar variability and greenhouse forcing. You consider me arrogant because I can cite a few numbers and understand their context, which you obviously can not.

[VAwxman]

I am merely comparing the forcing between solar variation and that given by CO2 based on energy received at the surface by both sources BEFORE FEEDBACK. If solar radiation absorbed at the surface decreases only by 0.24/m^2 we will not be freezing our you know whats off as long as current rates of CO2 increase continue.

The argument that we shouldn't discount what we do not know is not science. Science can only work with what we do know. You can play the ignorance card forever.

This is true, but you should then state it as such. You didn't say "based on what we know". You stated it is 100% absolute truth, which is just as much an ignorant statement, to be totally honest about it.

It's an area that needs to see a lot more research, and I think will in the coming years. There are interesting correlations out there between some global pattern teleconnections and things such as geomagnetic activity, solar wind, etc. I find it interesting because these correlations totally disappear using TSI, solar flux, and sunspot numbers. The HUGE glaring problem is that no physical connection has been established. It is simply correlation without causation, and we know what that is worth. The end result is, yes, given all that we know right now, the CO2 component will outweigh the solar one. Will it still be that way after more years of research? We'll have to wait and see on that. On the flip side though, the other concern is what happens when natural components go back into a state where they contructively interfere with the human component, but we'll leave that one for another time.

[LakeEffectKing]

failure to understand = humble

understanding = arrogance

got it.

Skier=elitist, arrogant, ignored

Got it! Got it?

[The_Global_Warmer]

Solar is the current main driver in the arctic. I would put it at near 90% at this point. The ice is vanishing from below becuase as we have all talked about the open water is absorbing the suns energy. This year there just happens to be a lot of open water and the winds have been relentless is pushing the areas of open warmer waters into the ice. On top of that the sun is warming the waters below the surface with natural water flows to prevent new ice forming, even in ideal conditions. It seems until we lose the suns forcing. the ice production will be mostly localized from even more idealistic weather conditions.

So in some ways the sun is now SGW.

I do feel bad for these scientist. There is a massively ignorant general public out there. Who is already confused enough.

If we go and tell them the sun is the current cause in rapid sea ice decline and a possible melt out. But hold on, this is only made possibly by natural factors and GHG forcing and without GHG forcing we would be no where near this position. So understand it's a complex system that needs natural balance.

There will be hundreds of talking heads, politicians, blogs that will skew this message and use phrases like SWG vs AGW and natural causes vs a combination of things.

right now they are gearing up for a last stand with Piomas showing the end is near for September ice. The sun is a mean warming machine. The arctic conditions this summer and basically all of September have been great for new ice production. But there is such a wide area of open water, not even coastal ice is getting it's act together where the really shallow water can be manipulated by local weather. In the NW passage this just happened where colder water is. But recent south east winds from a powerful and warm plume of air around a elongated trough of LP have offset this growth temporarily. This amplifies the dirty work the sun does. In one day of sun a region can see surface temps rise 2-3C before mixing down which keep the entire column warm. we can see the sun helping waters in the barents and kara stay at record warm levels because of the big ball of gas in space.

Talk about Irony.

[Go Kart Mozart]

Of course none of those cold related effects would become reality in the event of a Grand Minimum. Increased greenhouse warming over about a seven year period is sufficient to equal the loss in energy received from the Sun during solar minimum. Therefor there would be no prolonged surface exposure to a net lowered downward energy from the combined solar + atmosphere radiators.

Also, this would have nothing to do with feedbacks, it is a direct consequence of the relative strength between absorbed surface radiation 240W/m^2 / 1000 ( the average solar decrease at solar minimum ) = -0.24W of forcing and that derived by roughly 7-10 years accumulation of CO2 with CO2 increasing >=2ppm/year. Remember a doubling of CO2 gives a forcing equaling 3.7W/m^2.

Solar variation can not compete with greenhouse gas warming long term.

Rusty, this is a question and not an argument:

You point out that a doubling of CO2 gives a forcing factor of 3.7. Based upon what I have learned in this forum, a doubling of CO2 should warm the planet by anywhere from .85 to 5 degrees centigrade, depending on feedbacks....and point of view.

If one accepts the above (and I think most of us do), It would seem that a solar minimum which reduces forcing by a factor of .24 should have negligible effects on earth's temperature...almost immeasurable in fact. Yet, in the last two grand minima, weren't the effects of the reduced solar forcing significant and impactful....greater than what one would expect from such a small reduction in forcing?

[skierinvermont]

Rusty, this is a question and not an argument:

You point out that a doubling of CO2 gives a forcing factor of 3.7. Based upon what I have learned in this forum, a doubling of CO2 should warm the planet by anywhere from .85 to 5 degrees centigrade, depending on feedbacks....and point of view.

If one accepts the above (and I think most of us do), It would seem that a solar minimum which reduces forcing by a factor of .24 should have negligible effects on earth's temperature...almost immeasurable in fact. Yet, in the last two grand minima, weren't the effects of the reduced solar forcing significant and impactful....greater than what one would expect from such a small reduction in forcing?

The last two grand minima also coincided with exceptionally high volcanic activity. You also have to remember that global temperature decreases during these periods were not actually that large and the coldest periods were those immediately following volcanoes. Climate models when fed with reconstructions of solar and volcanic activity during the past minima predict the global temperature of those periods well.

The top lines (a) are reconstructions of volcanic forcing which I believe are derived from the amount of SO2 found in ice cores.

The next lines (b.) are reconstructions of solar forcing (probably from sunspots).

The next lines © are other forcings (GHG, aerosols, etc.)

The bottom of the graph shows model simulations of temperate based on the above forcings for the last 1,000 years. The model simulations are the colorful lines, the black shading is the current best estimate of historical global temperature. As you can see, the models and the observational record agree fairly well.

[WeatherRusty]

Rusty, this is a question and not an argument:

You point out that a doubling of CO2 gives a forcing factor of 3.7. Based upon what I have learned in this forum, a doubling of CO2 should warm the planet by anywhere from .85 to 5 degrees centigrade, depending on feedbacks....and point of view.

If one accepts the above (and I think most of us do), It would seem that a solar minimum which reduces forcing by a factor of .24 should have negligible effects on earth's temperature...almost immeasurable in fact. Yet, in the last two grand minima, weren't the effects of the reduced solar forcing significant and impactful....greater than what one would expect from such a small reduction in forcing?

A 0.25W forcing will produce a black body temperature response of about 0.1C and as it happens a corresponding temperature response to the variation due to the 11 year sunspot cycle peak to trough has been teased out of the temperature record. So before feedback, we should expect approximately 0.1C of temperature variation for such a forcing.

As can be seen in the graphic skier posted, at least twice that forcing may have occurred over the longer record spanning centuries. So, maybe 0.2C + of temperature response before feedback resulting from near 0.5W or more of solar forcing variation over the centuries before feedback. That's about two tenths of 1% variation in solar insolation.

Globally, the temperature variation between the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age was on the order of about 0.8C or about 4 times the black body response at 0.2C. Positive feedback enhancing the black body response could have at least doubled the net total temperature response. Skier has mentioned the impact of enhanced volcanic activity in temporarily depressing global temps due to aerosol related negative forcing.

[gracetoyou]

Since you can't address the issue, you attack me. Fine. Par for the course.

Anyone....where are the flaws and unknowns in what I stated. Be specific. If you can't, then that indicates to me you don't have a clue about the relative values given for solar variability and greenhouse forcing. You consider me arrogant because I can cite a few numbers and understand their context, which you obviously can not.

You miss the point entirely. I think you're arrogant because you think it's all figured out. Are you kidding me? Although we've learned more through the years, there is still so much we don't know about all the factors that affect our climate, including the suns affect on our climate. With that said there is never room for the level of confident arrogance you displayed in your reply...like it's so simple & you understand it all. No one...NO ONE does! If we remain humble & teachable then we remain in a position to possibly keep learning about our planet & it's climate. But if not....arrogance, simplicity, & overconfidence will be the death of all learning.

[gracetoyou]

failure to understand = humble

understanding = arrogance

got it.

Wrong...

• Thinking we understand, when there is still so much unaddressed = arrogance

• understanding there is still much more unaddressed & seasoning what we think we've learned with that understanding = humble

Remembering the majesty & complexity of creation compared with our very limited knowledge is a must when studying anything about our planet, including it's climate. we will always be in learning mode...this is the only way science advances.

[WeatherRusty]

You miss the point entirely. I think you're arrogant because you think it's all figured out. Are you kidding me? Although we've learned more through the years, there is still so much we don't know about all the factors that affect our climate, including the suns affect on our climate. With that said there is never room for the level of confident arrogance you displayed in your reply...like it's so simple & you understand it all. No one...NO ONE does! If we remain humble & teachable then we remain in a position to possibly keep learning about our planet & it's climate. But if not....arrogance, simplicity, & overconfidence will be the death of all learning.

When did I ever say I think it's all figured out. Would you like it if I agreed we will never have it all figured out?

What is it that you think I have all figured out?

If I talk about the relative radiative forcing between known and measured solar variation and that produced by increasing CO2 as determined by radiative transfer theory, how is it from that you gather I think I have it all figured out?

I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying that all of science is basically useless because we fear our understanding is incomplete? Or does this lack of understanding only apply to climate science and the physics underlying it?

[Sunny and Warm]

Wrong...

• Thinking we understand, when there is still so much unaddressed = arrogance

• understanding there is still much more unaddressed & seasoning what we think we've learned with that understanding = humble

Remembering the majesty & complexity of creation compared with our very limited knowledge is a must when studying anything about our planet, including it's climate. we will always be in learning mode...this is the only way science advances.

that's whe he's on ignore.

[skierinvermont]

Wrong...

• Thinking we understand, when there is still so much unaddressed = arrogance

• understanding there is still much more unaddressed & seasoning what we think we've learned with that understanding = humble

Remembering the majesty & complexity of creation compared with our very limited knowledge is a must when studying anything about our planet, including it's climate. we will always be in learning mode...this is the only way science advances.

Except we do know a great deal and you just don't understand it. Repeating over and over that we have very limited knowledge doesn't negate the many things we do know.

Yes there are many things we don't know, but we do know enough to say with very high likelihood that doubling CO2 will lead to 1.5-5.5C of warming, probably 2-4.5C.

[gracetoyou]

Except we do know a great deal and you just don't understand it. Repeating over and over that we have very limited knowledge doesn't negate the many things we do know.

Yes there are many things we don't know, but we do know enough to say with very high likelihood that doubling CO2 will lead to 1.5-5.5C of warming, probably 2-4.5C.

What's the use in saying anything? I've read enough of this thread to figure out that everyone that doesn't agree with AGW is wasting finger energy & is also anti-intellectual.

[skierinvermont]

What's the use in saying anything? I've read enough of this thread to figure out that everyone that doesn't agree with AGW is wasting finger energy & is also anti-intellectual.

yes

the problem is very few of the so called skeptics actually grasp the concept that the earth's surface temperature is determined by the energy in and how fast it escapes and can be reduced to the simple concept of radiative forcing. This very simple concept accurately predicts the temperature of the earth and of other celestial bodies.

Once you grasp this.. making vague statements like "we don't understand how the sun can affect climate" make very little sense. There's the energy in, and the energy out. Solar minimums slightly perturb the energy in. There's nothing magic going on here.

The amount of energy directed at earth has barely changed at all. At the same time we have directly measured large increases in opacity of the atmosphere to longwave radiation specifically at the CO2 spectrum. AGW theory is directly testable and empirically verifiable.

[WeatherRusty]

yes

the problem is very few of the so called skeptics actually grasp the concept that the earth's surface temperature is determined by the energy in and how fast it escapes and can be reduced to the simple concept of radiative forcing. This very simple concept accurately predicts the temperature of the earth and of other celestial bodies.

Once you grasp this.. making vague statements like "we don't understand how the sun can affect climate" make very little sense. There's the energy in, and the energy out. Solar minimums slightly perturb the energy in. There's nothing magic going on here.

The amount of energy directed at earth has barely changed at all. At the same time we have directly measured large increases in opacity of the atmosphere to longwave radiation specifically at the CO2 spectrum. AGW theory is directly testable and empirically verifiable.

This is essentially the message I have brought to these forums. It is good to see that at least someone understands the physical basis for AGW sufficiently well to be able to reduce the apparent complexity to a simple powerful concept. Great job Sier!

[Jesse]

Been awhile since anyone has posted in this thread. Seems solar activity has picked up quite a bit lately.

I wonder if a Dalton type minimum is out of the question now.

[Strongbad]

Been awhile since anyone has posted in this thread. Seems solar activity has picked up quite a bit lately.

I wonder if a Dalton type minimum is out of the question now.

Nope because that is for Cycle 25, and we are not out of 24 yet. So far there are no indications from the Sun as to when we can expect Cycle 25 (usually by now you can already depict what is coming next, but that is not the case as of now)

[Isotherm]

The Sun continues its slumber in terms of geomagnetic activity. Planetary K indices generally around 2; geomagnetic Ap numbers hovering around 5 or lower. Both values indicate a very weak magnetic field for this stage in the cycle. Solar activity is not impressive either; we have some C-class flaring around sunspot 1339, but heading into the future it doesn't appear we'll have any major changes. Weakening geomagnetic indicators heading into the cool season adds steam to my thinking on enhanced tropospheric blocking in the nern hemisphere for the third consecutive winter.

[BethesdaWX]

yes

the problem is very few of the so called skeptics actually grasp the concept that the earth's

surface temperature is determined by the energy in and how fast it escapes and can be reduced

to the simple concept of radiative forcing. This

very simple concept accurately predicts the temperature of the earth and of other celestial bodies.

Once you grasp this.. making vague statements like "we don't understand how the sun can affect climate" make very little sense. There's the energy in, and the energy out. Solar minimums slightly perturb the energy in. There's nothing magic going on here.

The amount of energy directed at earth has barely changed at all. At the same time we have

directly measured large increases in opacity of the atmosphere to longwave radiation specifically at the CO2 spectrum. AGW theory is directly

testable and empirically verifiable.

Nope, Skier and Rusty are both incorrect. There is very small change in solar output, there is thermal energy...and then there is potential energy + kinetic energy in the earth system subject to kinetic directional forcing between the Earth's own magnetic field and the solar magnetic flux, operating atmospheric albedo. Total atmospheric and oceanic energy is in relatively close equilibrium with the sun [obviously]. Anyone who looks at the Sun-Climate relationship in solely TSI colored glasses is fooling themselves. The thermal budget is a tiny aspect of importance. The most important aspect is the kinetic mode, not the thermal budget. The kinetic aspect regulates everything including the GHE. It can be demonstrated too.

The atmosphere and oceans get 99.9% of their thermal and kinetic energy from the Sun, so obviously Skierinvermont is right in that the change in solar input would be the only way to alter that, directly at least. Meanwhile there is the the mode of transfer (SW to LW to Kinetic, which incorporates SW to LW directly re-emitted back to space) which this is directly modulated by magnetism since magnetism is directly linked to the kinetic budget through atmospheric albedo, which the kinetic energy mode is the true regulator in the GHE, not thermal trapping, but thermal transfer [think convection which is induced by the GHE]. The Sun drives ENSO, the NAO, the PDO, so on so forth, magnetically by the mode of transfer in relation to total systematic distance from equilibrium, which the energy mode relative to mass + energetic inertia causes the lag. Basically how the energy manifests and is handled. That may seem minor at first but it becomes predominant when the GHE is analyzed.

The CO2 spectrum couldn't be more meaningless. It would admittedly be a very big deal if the CO2 spectrum could encompass the entire atmospheric window with plenty of additional micrometer expansion potential, [assuming the gas is well dispersed which is debatable], but this simply isn't the case. To put it simply the earth emits thousands of various wavelengths, and only some are thermal. Only some are in the SW. The kinetic budget is the regulator of equilibrium, [again, think convection] meaning the process mode that represents internal equilibrium regulation and management.

Without greenhouses gases, our atmosphere would actually be warmer. I'm sure you know why this is, [think convective overturning] and the kinetic budget that is represented both in convection and in the wind that coincides in the base value. The GHE drives convective overturning.

There is always going to be an imbalance in TOA because the GHE simply exists, and not all the energy in the climate system is thermal, visible in the SW, or any of that. It is the kinetic portion of the total budget that is responsible for the imbalance between incoming and outgoing energies that has always been present, and it is prevolent in the GHE itself, during convective overturning which is 100% induced by GHE. So convection = [means] evaporation and condensation, cloud cover, which reflects SW radiation...rain falls, stabilizing the temperature profile, while SW is reflected to complete transfer. The kinetic budget is what prevents imbalance within the GHE. You can dampen the CO2 spectrum all you want with very little effect aside from warmer nights and colder days to put it simply.

We're going to be fine.