Solar Minumums vs. Solar Maximums

[vortmax]

I'm no expert, but having a Met degree and understanding that the sun has almost everything to do with how our planet operates at many levels, I find it hard to believe the term 'Modern Maximun' hasn't been linked to the latest global warming trends.

We've all heard of the Maunder Minimum and the majority of modern day scientist believed it played a significant role in the Little Ice Age in the 16th-19th centuries. You may have also heard of the Medieval Maximum which, interestingly enough, coincided with a global warming period in 8th-11th centuries.

Again, I'm no expert, but doesn't it stand to reason that the largest source of heat for our planet may be primarily responsible for the recent warm-up and cool-downs of our planet?

And for the record, as the dominant species on this planet, I do think we have a responsibility to keep it well kept to the best of our abilities...

[beneficii]

We know that CO2, not the sun, has been driving the recent temperature increase, because the troposphere has been warming while the stratosphere has been cooling and because the sun's output has actually been declining since the early 1970s. There are many other fingerprints, such as C13/C12 ratios, that point to the increase in CO2 as the culprit.

[skierinvermont]

Scientists do attribute much of the early century warming to solar. However, solar activity has plateaued during the period of fastest warming and theoretically there should be very little lag time between solar and the surface temperature response.

The primary reason that the warming of the last 50 years is not primarily attributable to solar and is attributed to CO2, is that satellite observations at the top of the atmosphere tell us that there is an energy imbalance which is directly attributable to CO2. More energy is entering the atmosphere than leaving it. We know that the cause of this imbalance is CO2 because less and less energy is leaving the atmosphere specifically at the long wave lengths which are absorbed by CO2. In other words we have direct physical evidence that CO2 is trapping the long wave radiation emitted by the earth. We have direct empirical evidence that CO2 is the reason the earth is absorbing heat faster than it can emit it.

[nzucker]

The role of solar in climate is increasingly going to be tested in the next thirty years, with a dramatic minimum developing and potentially counteracting the influence of rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. We know the Earth experienced large temperature drops during the Dalton and Maunder Minima, so we'll have to see what happens with the slowdown of the solar cycle currently being observed.

[vortmax]

We have direct empirical evidence that CO2 is the reason the earth is absorbing heat faster than it can emit it.

Hypothetically speaking, if global temperatures begin to decrease from the current levels over, say, the next decade, what would that tell us about CO2?

[beneficii]

The role of solar in climate is increasingly going to be tested in the next thirty years, with a dramatic minimum developing and potentially counteracting the influence of rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. We know the Earth experienced large temperature drops during the Dalton and Maunder Minima, so we'll have to see what happens with the slowdown of the solar cycle currently being observed.

But the evidence that we have points to the increase of CO2 as having much stronger forcing and creating water vapor and methane feedbacks causing the troposphere to warm at high rates.

[skierinvermont]

Hypothetically speaking, if global temperatures begin to decrease from the current levels over, say, the next decade, what would that tell us about CO2?

Unless the satellite measurements at the top of the atmosphere which show CO2 is blocking more and more radiation from the earth's surface are somehow proven to be incorrect, it probably wouldn't tell us anything about CO2.

If, hypothetically, we did cool at the surface it wouldn't prove anything about CO2. That could only be proven if the satellite measurements of which I am speaking were proven erroneous, or if there were strong empirical evidence that the entire earth (oceans, ice, troposphere) cooled (not just the very lower troposphere).

If the surface cooled (without another obvious explanation like a large volcano), but the oceans continued warming, it might tell us that it will take slightly longer for the warming to occur than expected. <--- I think this is the answer to your question

I don't think that is likely however, although you can't rule a scenario like that out 100%. But we do know for a 100% fact that CO2 is causing the rapid accumulation of heat on this planet (both theoretically and empirically).

[vortmax]

...and because the sun's output has actually been declining since the early 1970s.

That's not an accurate statement according to NASA:

NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE

Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.

NASA article...

[nzucker]

Hypothetically speaking, if global temperatures begin to decrease from the current levels over, say, the next decade, what would that tell us about CO2?

It would just tell us that other factors are overpowering the carbon's influence on global climate, such as the -PDO/La Niña regime and powerful solar minimum. It wouldn't be a rejection of fundamental AGW theory, just a modification of the trend in favor of more influence from natural cycles.

Global temperatures are going to tank pretty hard this year....global SSTs are near January 2008 levels with rapid cooling occurring in the Indian Ocean and parts of the Southern Ocean. The Niña has restrengthened in the last few days, so this will probably be one of the coldest years globally in the past decade. We're also seeing very extreme airmasses developing in the Arctic, as the GFS shows sub 468m thicknesses over NW Canada, just brutal cold.

But the evidence that we have points to the increase of CO2 as having much stronger forcing and creating water vapor and methane feedbacks causing the troposphere to warm at high rates.

I agree to some extent...the forcing in W/m2 is higher for CO2 than for changes in solar radiation. We'll probably still warm some in the next 50 years despite remaining in a solar minimum, although the IPCC's estimate of .2C/decade seems a bit aggressive at this point. We also don't know to what extent the solar minimum will complement the -PDO regime in terms of global cooling potential and albedo feedbacks, though the smart money is still on anthropogenic warming in the long-term. Not sure about the next 10-20 years, however, as multiple factors are pointing to a much colder climate.

[skierinvermont]

It would just tell us that other factors are overpowering the carbon's influence on global climate, such as the -PDO/La Niña regime and powerful solar minimum. It wouldn't be a rejection of fundamental AGW theory, just a modification of the trend in favor of more influence from natural cycles.

Exactly. That's basically what I was getting at with my last post. Although it's not necessarily natural cycles.. it could also just be that it takes longer for the surface to respond to the heat accumulation than expected (the oceans absorb a higher % of the heat than expected). Either way I think it's quite unlikely that we actually cool although I could consider a period of slower warming. The energy imbalance is too large for the surface not to warm for an extended period. If the surface doesn't warm, the energy imbalance will become much much larger (and it is already incomprehensibly large).

[vortmax]

It wouldn't be a rejection of fundamental AGW theory, just a modification of the trend in favor of more influence from natural cycles.

To all that agree with AGW theory, what would it take for a fundamental rejection of it?

[skierinvermont]

To all that agree with AGW theory, what would it take for a fundamental rejection of it?

I think I answered that in my last post:

1) Disprove the satellite measurements at the top of the atmosphere which show that less and less LW radiation is passing through the atmosphere at the wavelengths absorbed by CO2.

2) The entire earth is shown NOT to be accumulating heat (this includes oceans, ice, land, and troposphere). They have been accumulating an extraordinary amount of heat over the last 100 years (especially the oceans).

3) Disprove Arrhenius's experiments from the late 1800s.

[BethesdaWX]

We know that CO2, not the sun, has been driving the recent temperature increase, because the troposphere has been warming while the stratosphere has been cooling and because the sun's output has actually been declining since the early 1970s. There are many other fingerprints, such as C13/C12 ratios, that point to the increase in CO2 as the culprit.

Your entire post is wrong.

-We do NOT, by any means, "know" that CO2 is causing the warming. Many have hypothesized that being such... but Hypothesis ain't fact, and we do not base conclusions off HYPOTHESIS.

-HOW can the medieval warm period be caused by Solar, but this Modern Warm Period cannot be? Our solar is much higher now. But Yet, MWP was solar caused, but this is CO2 caused? The MWP was as warm or warmer than today BTW. Fact is, our warming is probably at least 95% solar.

-The argument that since we;re in a solar minimum now, that we should be global cooling already is miscontruded. Global temps do not drop right away, as it takes a period over several 11 year cycles to do such completely. We have seen a cooling trend since 2002, briefly interrupted by the latest ENSO, now we'll continue our cooling trend, already down to +0.28C, and another 0.4C to go by april.

-Solar has not been decreasing since the 70's, sunspot wise, & Flux wise. The highest solar cycle in history was SC23, the 1970's actually had a lull un the solar cycle that coinsided with the cold 1970's.

-The "hockeystick" proxies, have been debunked. No need to post them here.

[beneficii]

Your entire post is wrong.

-We do NOT, by any means, "know" that CO2 is causing the warming. Many have hypothesized that being such... but Hypothesis ain't fact, and we do not base conclusions off HYPOTHESIS.

-HOW can the medieval warm period be caused by Solar, but this Modern Warm Period cannot be? Our solar is much higher now. But Yet, MWP was solar caused, but this is CO2 caused? The MWP was as warm or warmer than today BTW. Fact is, our warming is probably at least 95% solar.

-The argument that since we;re in a solar minimum now, that we should be global cooling already is miscontruded. Global temps do not drop right away, as it takes a period over several 11 year cycles to do such completely. We have seen a cooling trend since 2002, briefly interrupted by the latest ENSO, now we'll continue our cooling trend, already down to +0.28C, and another 0.4C to go by april.

-Solar has not been decreasing since the 70's, sunspot wise, & Flux wise. The highest solar cycle in history was SC23, the 1970's actually had a lull un the solar cycle that coinsided with the cold 1970's.

-The "hockeystick" proxies, have been debunked. No need to post them here.

I'm neither a schoolteacher nor a surgeon for you.

[beneficii]

That's not an accurate statement according to NASA:

NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE

Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.

NASA article...

That source merely looks at the minima. Even if you do accept that view, however, you must realize the solar forcing is still insignificant next to the forcing by CO2. Now, I said forcing. Naturally, without the sun, this planet would be a ball of ice, but the changes in solar output (even if you look at just the minima) are not that significant, and the forcing due to those changes is again insignificant compared to forcing due to the changes in CO2. In other words, solar forcing cannot explain the rapid warming we've had since about 1980.

WeatherRusty on another thread did the calculations, showing that indeed the solar forcing would be insignificant compared to the forcing by CO2. Perhaps WeatherRusty can be so kind as to repost them.

[aslkahuna]

Cycle 23 had a peak R number of 120.8 at max. Cycle 19's peak R number at max in late 1957 early 1958 was 190 which is the highest R number for a maximum ever observed during the telescopic era. I know this to be true because I OBSERVED Cycle 19 and I also know that the max in 1780 is the second highest from reading on past cycles. There's no X-Ray data from the 1950's so we don't know what the X-Ray flux was but I do know that there were some monster flares then. The 10.7 cm flux exceeded 300 sfu for daily values which is on par with 23. Therefore, all things considered, Cycle 23 was NOT the highest on record although it has the strongest individual flare ever observed in X-Rays.

Steve

[BethesdaWX]

I'm neither a schoolteacher nor a surgeon for you.

I know, you're my student, as observed by your lackluster post. Congrats on emberrassing yourself

[BethesdaWX]

Cycle 23 had a peak R number of 120.8 at max. Cycle 19's peak R number at max in late 1957 early 1958 was 190 which is the highest R number for a maximum ever observed during the telescopic era. I know this to be true because I OBSERVED Cycle 19 and I also know that the max in 1780 is the second highest from reading on past cycles. There's no X-Ray data from the 1950's so we don't know what the X-Ray flux was but I do know that there were some monster flares then. The 10.7 cm flux exceeded 300 sfu for daily values which is on par with 23. Therefore, all things considered, Cycle 23 was NOT the highest on record although it has the strongest individual flare ever observed in X-Rays.

Steve

Once cycle doesn't make a trend. Long term trends in global temps as a result of several 11yr cycles, and our recent mondern max still has that lingering effect.

My point... if its not observed, it hasn't been recorded obviously.

[BethesdaWX]

Again, why was the MWP caused by solar, matching todays temps......and yet our recent modern max didn't cause this warm period?

[beneficii]

I know, you're my student, as observed by your lackluster post. Congrats on emberrassing yourself

Mu.

[beneficii]

Again, why was the MWP caused by solar, matching todays temps......and yet our recent modern max didn't cause this warm period?

Just wait a little bit, and WeatherRusty will reproduce his figures showing how the CO2 forcing overwhelms any forcing from the sun. In case you didn't remember, he did post those figures a week or 2 ago. I don't remember which thread though, so again we must wait. I find it reasonable to request of you, because afterall we must wait until 2045 to try to convince you.

[BethesdaWX]

Mu.

You know, using the PC contributes to Global Warming apparently, so if I were you, I wouldn't ruin the planet with posts like yours above. At least post something that the pkanet will thank you for, otherwise we'll all burn in hell.

[BethesdaWX]

Just wait a little bit, and WeatherRusty will reproduce his figures showing how the CO2 forcing overwhelms any forcing from the sun. In case you didn't remember, he did post those figures a week or 2 ago. I don't remember which thread though, so again we must wait. I find it reasonable to request of you, because afterall we must wait until 2045 to try to convince you.

haha, what did we say about using hypothesis as proof? Again, as solar caused the MWP, rising GTA to over +0.8, the formulas are obviously not correct anyway. LIA is another example.

Fact is, what gases do inside a controlled impound have no bearings on their behavior in the atmosphere.

I actually like this graph....it vindicates solar big time.....

[beneficii]

haha, what did we say about using hypothesis as proof? Again, as solar caused the MWP, rising GTA to over +0.8, the formulas are obviously not correct anyway. LIA is another example.

Fact is, what gases do inside a controlled impound have no bearings on their behavior in the atmosphere.

I actually like this graph....it vindicates solar big time.....

You don't have much patience, do you?

EDIT: And this is coming from a person who said we must wait until 2045 to convince them.

[BethesdaWX]

You don't have much patience, do you?

EDIT: And this is coming from a person who said we must wait until 2045 to convince them.

huh? What does this have to do with convincing people?

Again, you're all over the place, I cannot have a reasonable debate with you.

[beneficii]

huh? What does this have to do with convincing people?

Again, you're all over the place, I cannot have a reasonable debate with you.

Oh yes you can. It is rather I cannot have one with you, not right now at least. After all, I can be convinced, and I have written out some ways that the scientific community and I can be convinced. Thus far, you have failed to present any evidence to falsify AGW, so I am not convinced. You on the other cannot be convinced until 2045--you said so yourself.

In scientific discussions, I am not interested in going around and around in circles. That I do think is a waste of greenhouse emissions.

[BethesdaWX]

Oh yes you can. It is rather I cannot have one with you, not right now at least. After all, I can be convinced, and I have written out some ways that the scientific community and I can be convinced. Thus far, you have failed to present any evidence to falsify AGW, so I am not convinced. You on the other cannot be convinced until 2045--you said so yourself.

In scientific discussions, I am not interested in going around and around in circles. That I do think is a waste of greenhouse emissions.

Well then, can we please get back on topic? It doesn't matter if it will take me 45 years to be convinced (your words), it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

My question for you. With the MWP being caused by solar, and GTA rising to near +0.8 (in other words, very warm) by our best estimates, why is our current WP not caused by the Modern max? Temps are the same, solar is the same, but this time its CO2?

[beneficii]

Well then, can we please get back on topic? It doesn't matter if it will take me 45 years to be convinced (your words), it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

My question for you. With the MWP being caused by solar, and GTA rising to near +0.8 (in other words, very warm) by our best estimates, why is our current WP not caused by the Modern max? Temps are the same, solar is the same, but this time its CO2?

If you can't be convinced, why should I bother?

[BethesdaWX]

If you can't be convinced, why should I bother?

You should probably leave then. Why do you think debates occur? It doesn't matter what the opponent is "convinced" by, it should be for the sake of science itself, not because I disagree with you. Otherwise there would be 100% consensus with no debates. Whatever it takes to "convince" me, or visa-versa, doesn't matter.

[Vandy]

With the MWP being caused by solar, and GTA rising to near +0.8 (in other words, very warm) by our best estimates, why is our current WP not caused by the Modern max? Temps are the same, solar is the same, but this time its CO2?

There is an even smaller body of evidence to support the MWP being caused by solar than there is for CO2 forced AGW. I'm not saying it's not the case... in fact I think it was solar, but correlation =/= causation and it is interesting to see you embrace so fully one proxy record while rejecting so completely another.