Sunspots cycle may be on the downswing

[WeatherRusty]

This doesn't add up even with skiier's conservative .3C estimate due to solar cooling during the Maunder Minimum...why do most climate models demonstrate way more than .1C of cooling due to solar during that time period?

What do you mean by "way more". Given time feedbacks will enhance any forcing.

[tacoman25]

What do you mean by "way more". Given time feedbacks will enhance any forcing.

Ok...so you are saying that prolonged low solar activity (like we may be facing over the next few decades) could lead to a greater cooling forcing than the IPCC's simple physical calculations would indicate?

[skierinvermont]

Laki was a VEI 6. I don't know of any VEI 5 or lower that had an effect similar to or surpassing Pinatubo's.

Laki was not a VEI 6.. that is an error on wikipedia. The global volcanism program rates it a high end VEI 4. There is no way Laki was a VEI 6... the actual explosive eruption was not that large. The amount of Tephra ejected into the atmosphere was less than 1/12th that of Pinatubo which was only a marginal VEI 6.

[skierinvermont]

This doesn't add up even with skiier's conservative .3C estimate due to solar cooling during the Maunder Minimum...why do most climate models demonstrate way more than .1C of cooling due to solar during that time period?

For one thing, Rusty's calculations were for .25W/m2 of solar variation, whereas most reconstructions show more like .5W/m2 of solar forcing from the peak of the MWP to the Maunder.

For another thing the simulations are for the NH hemisphere only (as our the temperature reconstructions) whereas Rusty's calculaitons are global. The temperature change in the NH would be greater.

Also in addition to the direct solar forcing of .5W/m2 you would have a water vapor and albedo feedback of about .5W/m2 as well.

.5W/m2 direct solar forcing + .5W/m2 of water vapor and albedo feedback = 1 W/m2 = ~.32C

So that is where the .3C of cooling from MWP to Maunder comes from. Peak to trough we get more like .6C because of the volcanoes.

[OHSnow]

However, if (and if all other known climate factors remaining fairly normal) we do see a sizable reduction in solar activity and a corresponding sizable global reaction (like, maybe slightly downward), the AGW hypothesis would have to be thrown out and/or retooled. A larger degree of solar forcing on the previous decades' temp increase would HAVE to be figured in, with respect to the historical global temperature recipe, thus reducing/eliminating the correlation between +CO2 -> +T.

But on the other hand if we see little or no effect (i.e. if temperatures don't drop), then maybe we need to attribute the entire warming to CO2.

[WeatherRusty]

Ok...so you are saying that prolonged low solar activity (like we may be facing over the next few decades) could lead to a greater cooling forcing than the IPCC's simple physical calculations would indicate?

The system will respond to the net forcing. Assuming a solar forcing of -0.25W, how long would it take co2 forcing to equal and surpass the solar value. Answer...Less than one decade. So by one decade the system will be feeding back on a net positive forcing. Without co2 forcing the system would feed back on a negative forcing.

[skierinvermont]

Ok...so you are saying that prolonged low solar activity (like we may be facing over the next few decades) could lead to a greater cooling forcing than the IPCC's simple physical calculations would indicate?

It's not more than the IPCC indicates.. the IPCC models a .5-.6C drop from the peak of the MWP to the trough of the LIA.

It is more than the direct solar forcing alone... but all the models which use the solar and volcanic forcing would include many many various feedbacks and other complexities. Which is why they show a ~.3C temperature drop for a ~.5W/m2 direct solar forcing even though the direct effect would be about .15C.

[tacoman25]

Laki was not a VEI 6.. that is an error on wikipedia. The global volcanism program rates it a high end VEI 4. There is no way Laki was a VEI 6... the actual explosive eruption was not that large. The amount of Tephra ejected into the atmosphere was less than 1/12th that of Pinatubo which was only a marginal VEI 6.

Looking further into it, it appears there is some debate about how to rate Laki exactly, which may be why there are discrepencies from different sources (not just Wikipedia). It was an unusual eruption because it lasted for 8 months.

Regardless, as I said, Laki probably didn't have nearly the global temperature effect as Pinatubo due to the fact it occurred so far north.

[skierinvermont]

Looking further into it, it appears there is some debate about how to rate Laki exactly, which may be why there are discrepencies from different sources (not just Wikipedia). It was an unusual eruption because it lasted for 8 months.

Regardless, as I said, Laki probably didn't have nearly the global temperature effect as Pinatubo due to the fact it occurred so far north.

Actually Laki probably impacted global temperatures more than Pinatubo because it emitted far more SO2 than Pinatubo did. Laki is infamous for its huge impact on global climate.. it's the one Benjamin Franklin deduced was responsible for the cold summer. Laki is believed to have caused a 1C drop in global temperatures (over twice Pinatubo), and was responsible for a 5C drop in U.S. winter temperatures.

There's not really a debate as to whether Laki was a VEI 4 or 6. It is more like confusion. It is well known that Laki emitted about 9X10^8 cubic meters of tephra. Pinatubo emitted 12 times that much at 1.1X 10^10. The VEI scale is based on cubic meters of tephra emitted. Anything >10^10 = VEI 6, 10^9 = VEI 5, 10^8= VEI 4. Which clearly puts Laki at a high-end VEI 4. The confusion occurs because wikipedia appears to be including the volume of lava to calculate the VEI of Laki. However, tephra, not lava, is used to determine VEI.

Anyways, what concerns us here is SO2, not lava or tephra. And by that standard the 4 VEI 5s in the late 1600s emitted as much SO2 as Pinatubo. Which isn't surprising since Pinatubo was a very low end 6 (arguably it was only a 5) and contained low levels of SO2.

[tacoman25]

Actually Laki probably impacted global temperatures more than Pinatubo because it emitted far more SO2 than Pinatubo did.

There's not really a debate as to whether Laki was a VEI 4 or 6. It is more like confusion. It is well known that Laki emitted about 9X10^8 cubic meters of tephra. Pinatubo emitted 12 times that much at 1.1X 10^10. The VEI scale is based on cubic meters of tephra emitted. Anything >10^10 = VEI 6, 10^9 = VEI 5, 10^8= VEI 4. The confusion occurs because wikipedia appears to be including the volume of lava to calculate the VEI of Laki. However, tephra, not lava, is used to determine VEI.

Anyways, what concerns us here is SO2, not lava or tephra. And by that standard the 4 VEI 5s in the late 1600s emitted as much SO2 as Pinatubo. Which isn't surprising since Pinatubo was a very low end 6 (arguably it was only a 5) and contained low levels of SO2.

You are still dealing with global temperature effects (which should be pretty even with solar) and regional effects, which can vary greatly with volcanic eruptions. Laki and possibly some of the other LIA volcanoes undoubtedly had significant effects in the NH, but they likely did not impact global temperatures like Pinatubo because the SO2/aerosols were not distributed throughout the globe like a equatorial eruption.

[skierinvermont]

You are still dealing with global temperature effects (which should be pretty even with solar) and regional effects, which can vary greatly with volcanic eruptions. Laki and possibly some of the other LIA volcanoes undoubtedly had significant effects in the NH, but they likely did not impact global temperatures like Pinatubo because the SO2/aerosols were not distributed throughout the globe like a equatorial eruption.

The 4 VEI 5s in the late 1600s and one VEI 6 were all equatorial and all had SO2 emissions equal to or greater than Pinatubo's.

And Laki did impact global temperatures even though it was high latitude because the SO2 emission was so massive. It is believed to have caused about 1C of cooling globally.

Finally, all of the temperature reconstructions which exhibit the .3C difference between MWP and LIA and .5-6C peak to trough are NH only anyways. It's likely that global temperatures did not vary as much as NH temperatures.

[tacoman25]

The 4 VEI 5s in the late 1600s and one VEI 6 were all equatorial and all had SO2 emissions equal to or greater than Pinatubo's.

And Laki did impact global temperatures even though it was high latitude because the SO2 emission was so massive. It is believed to have caused about 1C of cooling globally.

Finally, all of the temperature reconstructions which exhibit the .3C difference between MWP and LIA and .5-6C peak to trough are NH only anyways. It's likely that global temperatures did not vary as much as NH temperatures.

As I understand it, though, VEI strength does matter in regards to global impact, because the stronger the eruption, the greater the dispersion of aerosols throughout the atmosphere. So it's not "just S02" that matters.

[BethesdaWX]

The black body temperature response for the whole Earth (Planck Equation , Stephan Boltzmann Law) to a quiet Sun amounts to less than 0.1C when the difference between a quiet Sun and a current day active Sun is generously given 0.25W/m^2 forcing.

The same formula which gives 1.2C of warming per 3.7W/m^2 forcing for a doubling of CO2 applies to solar forcing.

3.7W/15=~0.25W

1.2C/15=0.08C

That's why climate scientists don't afford the intrinsic variability of the Sun much impact on Earth's climate. It's why we measure about 0.1C temperature variation between typical modern max and min.

Before I try to get into the Solar Issue, Rusty, do you know what the second law of Thermodynamics States? It is quite clear. It states: Any closed system left to itself will continually deteriorate toward a more chaotic state. A Warmer Body Cannot Cool a Cooler Body in a standalone system, in all regards. 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/pressure reservoir, and such a mechanism cannot physically 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 an actual Greenhouse is the supression of Air Cooling, and not radiative transfer & re emission.

This is where feedback is ignored, but only put into effect on a supposed original warming effect directly from CO2, and little Imput from the Sun or other forcings is NEEDED to accomplish this. CO2 Insolates the atmosphere, but it cannot re-emit more than can pass through it, and no matter how much CO2 there is, the amount of re-emited LW doesn't change per mocelule. This is why the effect is Logorithmic....even BEFORE feedbacks are applied, which are likely negative. Most Climate Modelers do not take into account that almost all of the Sun's true energy SW (incoming) is in the infrared spectrum, and not the visible spectrum, which only adds to the problem.

Evidence?

As for your Statement on the Sun....Its Irrelavent. There are Forcings, and then there are Feedbacks. The Forcing Value is almost Irrelavent, it is the Feedback Value that matters in the End. 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. Solar Forcing (Directly From the Sun, Changes in the Sun) is one thing, Indirect Solar Forcing and Feedback is something completely different, and cannot yet be accurately modeled, the climate system is complicated and Chaotic. Same Rules goes for CO2, Forcing is almost irrelavent, its the feedback that matters, and until we understand how many of these unknown mechanisms operate, we will not be able to accurately determine the feedback to a supposed CO2 Warming.

The whole basis behind solar Activity Driving the Climate System over long period of Time is Completely Feedback Related, to both Direct and Indirect Solar Forcings.

In the Milancovitch Cycles, Temps Varying by 8-12C globally due to minro changes in how the The Suns Energy reaches earth.

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.

This is the CPC data (aka, "official"), a net increase of Several W/m^2 OLR. I have drawn a Line through the 0 axis so the trend can be eyeballed to a more accurate extent. OLR correlates to ENSO very well, which is how a PDO phase change drops global temperatures.................but even more-so, there is an OVERALL increase in the amount fo OLR by...alot. This would occur in natural warming. Where we have seen the supression in OLR is in the CO2 spectrum... but the planet releases OLR is all sorts of different wavelengths/frequencies. The Minor Changes in the Co2 Spectrum are not even visible

Even the IPCC references these Unknown Solar Mechanisms in their "10% Chance" 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. In the End, we will find out, but it will be a prolonged procees moreso than a "quick drop to frigid doom" if it indeed happens. But it should not be even considered settled science as to the role of the Sun, Period. Even the IPCC supports this notion, so that should send a message.

Up until 2006, the AA index looked like this...Just a heads up.

It has since Crashed to Record Lows... The Lag is 4-8yrs qualitatively, so, we'll see. Remember the Lag is when effects begin, but it won't be an immediate plunge if it happens, but a decline maybe 0.1-0.2C/decade if the Hypothesis regarding Geomagnetic Effects is correct.

Now as for Past Warmings/Coolings, These changes cannot be related simply to GHG and TSI/Volcanism Changes. But they Do correlate with what we'd expect them too....the Sun. Please do not post and hockeysticks in response...that is the lowest form of Climate Debate.

The only place we see the correlation is Multi Decade/Century...

Your Quote:

Given time feedbacks will enhance any forcing.

Exactly! This is why Multi-Decadal Solar Trends Are so Important. You may not see feedbacks within 11yr cycles like you will in Multi-Decadal/Century cycles....these feedbackspotentially coming from alterations in the climate system longer term......this is where the IPCC states: "Uncertainties remain large because of the lack of direct observations and incomplete understanding of solar variability mechanisms over long time scales"

This is where uncertainties exist...not short term.....not even over 22yrs, but long term. The IPCC knows it...and thankfully for them these cannot be measured or modeled...yet. Heck most are unknown.

cheers

[skierinvermont]

As I understand it, though, VEI strength does matter in regards to global impact, because the stronger the eruption, the greater the dispersion of aerosols throughout the atmosphere. So it's not "just S02" that matters.

The SO2 proxies are taken from the poles... clearly the SO2 emitted propagated globally if the volcanoes were at the equator and the SO2 ended up at the poles.

[tacoman25]

The SO2 proxies are taken from the poles... clearly the SO2 emitted propagated globally if the volcanoes were at the equator and the SO2 ended up at the poles.

What makes you think those volcanoes were at the equator? Obviously, Laki was very near the pole.

[WeatherRusty]

Bethesda:

You're posts are to long.

I will respond to your first topic, the greenhouse effect suppossedly violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This supposes that the troposphere warms the surface. It does not and can not because the troposphere is colder than the surface. It is the surface which warms the air, not the other way around.

The greenhouse effect works not by atmospheric gases warming the surface, but rather by slowing the loss of thermal energy to space from the surface. A suface which thus cools more slowly remains a warmer surface. The net flow of energy is always from the warmer to the colder. There is no violation of the second law.

[skierinvermont]

What makes you think those volcanoes were at the equator? Obviously, Laki was very near the pole.

Because we know exactly which volcanoes erupted based on geologic records and local histories...

2 were in Japan, 2 were in Indonesia, and the VEI 6 was in New Guinea.So I suppose two of the five were more like mid-latitude.Either way, they led to high levels of SO2 found in the ice cores across decadal periods.

[skierinvermont]

Bethesda:

You're posts are to long.

I will respond to your first topic, the greenhouse effect suppossedly violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This supposes that the troposphere warms the surface. It does not and can not because the troposphere is colder than the surface. It is the surface which warms the air, not the other way around.

The greenhouse effect works not by atmospheric gases warming the surface, but rather by slowing the loss of thermal energy to space from the surface. A suface which thus cools more slowly remains a warmer surface. The net flow of energy is always from the warmer to the colder. There is no violation of the second law.

Yeah... that was a pretty huge error at the start of the post but I didn't bother pointing it out because the rest of the post was too long to bother reading. It's amazing he has 2000+ posts on a climate forum and doesn't understand the basics of the greenhouse effect yet. This is really fundamental. You can't just walk around claiming to have discovered that the greenhouse effect violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

[BethesdaWX]

This is what happens when we don't read posts thoroughly.....you would have seen that I was attempting to explain why the Earth's GHE should not be compared to the mechanisms in an actual greenhouse.

My Quote:

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 much of the heating in an actual Greenhouse is the supression of Air Cooling, and not radiative transfer & re emission.

As in, a Closed System (An Actual Greenhouse), Vs an Open System (The Earth's Atmosphere), is what I was attempting to relate back to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Although now that I read back, I can see my thoughts were Poorly Organized...still I feel that if you had read through the post, you would have understood it.

[nzucker]

Why are we discussing the greenhouse effect and historical volcanoes in here? This thread is about sunspots, folks.

Interesting to see that the long spotless period in 2008 during Solar Cycle 24 may finally be bearing fruit, or at least being recognized as unique in the mainstream science. It's also important to note that the long-term blocking pattern (-NAO/-AO) began in Summer 2008 when we really began tracking the lull in solar activity. Considering that Winter 09-10 and 10-11 had almost the same 500mb pattern despite opposite ENSO signals, the sun may be indicted as a variable in changes in arctic circulation patterns. We haven't seen much in the way of consistent, constant +NAO since Winter 07-08. In addition to global temperatures going down if we do enter a Maunder, the places where most people live may be affected by harsher conditions as we have evidence that both Greenland and Alaska warmed during the Maunder period, meaning that there was probably a -NAO/-EPO regime that would cause people living in places like NYC and Chicago to experience much more of an Ice Age than those in more remote locations. If Livingston and Penn are correct about a total lack of Solar Cycle, that could set up some fascinating conditions, especially since its effect would be at the bottom of the -AMO cycle in the mid 2020s as well as falling within the -PDO cycle. Certainly lots of conflicting signals about where our climate is going now, with greenhouse gases saying one thing but solar, volcanic, and oceanic patterns indicating another. To its credit, the IPCC did mention a great deal of uncertainty regarding solar effects beyond TSI in the 2007 report, so that gives them a little bit of leeway beyond the technical confidence interval if we do see an unprecedented solar minimum, although I do believe this possibility should have been discussed further given Landscheidt's predictions and then what Livingston and Penn have written.

[skierinvermont]

This is what happens when we don't read posts thoroughly.....you would have seen that I was attempting to explain why the Earth's GHE should not be compared to the mechanisms in an actual greenhouse.

My Quote:

As in, a Closed System (An Actual Greenhouse), Vs an Open System (The Earth's Atmosphere), is what I was attempting to relate back to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Although now that I read back, I can see my thoughts were Poorly Organized...still I feel that if you had read through the post, you would have understood it.

So the whole point of all of that was that the greenhouse effect is a misnomer?

Nobody says that the greenhouse effect works exactly like a greenhouse. So this is arguing about a name and nothing more.

So yes technically the greenhouse effect is a misnomer. If you want to get even more technical, it's not100% a misnomer because a greenhouse works both by preventing convection, and if it is a glass greenhouse it will prevent outgoing LW radiation.

[nzucker]

Bethesda:

You're Your posts are to long.

You may be good at repeating the radiative forcing equations a trillion times, but you suck at grammar. Won't be getting any peer review that way.

[tacoman25]

Why are we discussing the greenhouse effect and historical volcanoes in here? This thread is about sunspots, folks.

Interesting to see that the long spotless period in 2008 during Solar Cycle 24 may finally be bearing fruit, or at least being recognized as unique in the mainstream science. It's also important to note that the long-term blocking pattern (-NAO/-AO) began in Summer 2008 when we really began tracking the lull in solar activity. Considering that Winter 09-10 and 10-11 had almost the same 500mb pattern despite opposite ENSO signals, the sun may be indicted as a variable in changes in arctic circulation patterns. We haven't seen much in the way of consistent, constant +NAO since Winter 07-08. In addition to global temperatures going down if we do enter a Maunder, the places where most people live may be affected by harsher conditions as we have evidence that both Greenland and Alaska warmed during the Maunder period, meaning that there was probably a -NAO/-EPO regime that would cause people living in places like NYC and Chicago to experience much more of an Ice Age than those in more remote locations. If Livingston and Penn are correct about a total lack of Solar Cycle, that could set up some fascinating conditions, especially since its effect would be at the bottom of the -AMO cycle in the mid 2020s as well as falling within the -PDO cycle. Certainly lots of conflicting signals about where our climate is going now, with greenhouse gases saying one thing but solar, volcanic, and oceanic patterns indicating another. To its credit, the IPCC did mention a great deal of uncertainty regarding solar effects beyond TSI in the 2007 report, so that gives them a little bit of leeway beyond the technical confidence interval if we do see an unprecedented solar minimum, although I do believe this possibility should have been discussed further given Landscheidt's predictions and then what Livingston and Penn have written.

Yes, the IPCC has at least become more open to solar influences in recent years. Their early reports made little or no mention of solar effects or uncertainty.

[BethesdaWX]

So the whole point of all of that was that the greenhouse effect is a misnomer?

Well the beginning of it was, but I see I mis-interpreted Rusty's post a few pages back, which is why I went into it, otherwise I wouldn't have said "before going into the solar issue", as to my take on what he was alluding to. The larger remaining portion was on topic for the most part, feedbacks & climactic responses directly involve potential solar equations of forcing and feedback. Only problem is we'll never have a methematical equation to measure the Sun's effect/modulation of the climate system's domating drivers, if indeed it does.

Nate ftw!

You may be good at repeating the radiative forcing equations a trillion times, but you suck at grammar. Won't be getting any peer review that way.

LMFAO Good Catch, I didn't see that! Man I would have taken that opportunity to maximum potential. Oh well.

[WeatherRusty]

You may be good at repeating the radiative forcing equations a trillion times, but you suck at grammar. Won't be getting any peer review that way.

I noticed that too, but I was working on an IPod at my grandson's little league game. Tethering off of my wife's IPhone 3g connection. To much trouble to fix it! Now I pay a steep price

[skierinvermont]

I noticed that too, but I was working on an IPod at my grandson's little league game. Tethering off of my wife's IPhone 3g connection. To much trouble to fix it! Now I pay a steep price

Oh noes!