|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Want to know the REAL future of climate? Ask an astronomer
(Phys.org)—Is Earth slowly heading for a new ice age? Looking at the decreasing number of sunspots, it may seem that we are entering a nearly spotless solar cycle which could result in lower temperatures for decades. "The solar cycle is starting to decline. Now we have less active regions visible on the sun's disk," Yaireska M. Collado-Vega, a space weather forecaster at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, told Phys.org.
But does it really mean a colder climate for our planet in the near future? In 1645, the so-called Maunder Minimum period started, when there were almost no sunspots. It lasted for 70 years and coincided with the well-known "Little Ice Age", when Europe and North America experienced lower-than-average temperatures. However, the theory that decreased solar activity caused the climate change is still controversial as no convincing evidence has been shown to prove this correlation. Helen Popova, a Lomonosov Moscow State University researcher predicts that if the existing theories about the impact of solar activity on the climate are true, then this minimum will lead to a significant cooling, similar to the one during the Maunder Minimum period. She recently developed a unique physical-mathematical model of the evolution of the magnetic activity of the sun and used it to gain the patterns of occurrence of global minima of solar activity and gave them a physical interpretation. "Given that our future minimum will last for at least three solar cycles, which is about 30 years, it is possible that the lowering of the temperature will not be as deep as during the Maunder Minimum," Popova said earlier in July. "But we will have to examine it in detail. We keep in touch with climatologists from different countries. We plan to work in this direction." |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Want to know the REAL future of climate? Ask an astronomer
On Friday, January 12, 2018 at 6:31:11 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
(Phys.org)—Is Earth slowly heading for a new ice age? Looking at the decreasing number of sunspots, it may seem that we are entering a nearly spotless solar cycle which could result in lower temperatures for decades.. "The solar cycle is starting to decline. Now we have less active regions visible on the sun's disk," Yaireska M. Collado-Vega, a space weather forecaster at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, told Phys.org. But does it really mean a colder climate for our planet in the near future? In 1645, the so-called Maunder Minimum period started, when there were almost no sunspots. It lasted for 70 years and coincided with the well- known "Little Ice Age", when Europe and North America experienced lower- than-average temperatures. However, the theory that decreased solar activity caused the climate change is still controversial as no convincing evidence has been shown to prove this correlation. Particularly since sunspots are areas of the sun that are COOLER than the bright parts. Simplistic argument would say that fewer sunspots should lead to WARMER weather on earth, but the reverse seems to be true. The connection may be coming clearer, though. Sunspots are responsible for the solar wind, which increases with sunspot activity and decreases with reduced activity. It appears that the solar wind deflects cosmic rays, so more cosmic rays impact earth during periods of low solar activity: https://www.vencoreweather.com/blog/...s-next-minimum The CLOUD project has linked nucleation of clouds to cosmic rays (which are actually mostly very high energy protons): http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud So that's the connection: lower solar activity may cause increased cloud cover, increasing earth's albedo and reflecting more sunlight back into space. Helen Popova, a Lomonosov Moscow State University researcher predicts that if the existing theories about the impact of solar activity on the climate are true, then this minimum will lead to a significant cooling, similar to the one during the Maunder Minimum period. She recently developed a unique physical-mathematical model of the evolution of the magnetic activity of the sun and used it to gain the patterns of occurrence of global minima of solar activity and gave them a physical interpretation. "Given that our future minimum will last for at least three solar cycles, which is about 30 years, it is possible that the lowering of the temperature will not be as deep as during the Maunder Minimum," Popova said earlier in July. "But we will have to examine it in detail. We keep in touch with climatologists from different countries. We plan to work in this direction." There was the Dalton minimum that occurred around 1810 for a few years each way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalton_Minimum which coincided with the "year without a summer" in 1816 wherein global temperatures dropped about 0.5 degrees C. That drop, however, occurred at the same time that Mt. Tambora blew its top (1815) and ejected about 10 cubic miles of itself into the air, much of which was fine ash that stayed in the atmosphere for many months. The Maunder minimum was also associated with excessive volcanic activity, so it's difficult to separate whether that or sunspots (or some other effects that have been hypothesized) were to blame for the reduced global temperature. Since we are approaching a period of extremely low solar activity: http://www.sidc.be/silso/dayssnplot it will be interesting to see what happens. Also, the length of time of this lowered activity is likely significant. If lack of sunspots had anything to do with the Maunder minimum, the inactive period was QUITE long, approximately 50 years, and so was the period of the Little Ice Age: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age The Dalton minimum was a much shorter period. One thing is certain, though: Climate models have NOT taken these phenomena into account. Consequently, there must be some doubt in their ability to give accurate predictions and more than a little doubt in those who have loudly proclaimed that the science is settled. “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” -- Shakespeare |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Want to know the REAL future of climate? Ask an astronomer
On Saturday, January 13, 2018 at 6:24:01 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
One thing is certain, though: Climate models have NOT taken these phenomena into account. Consequently, there must be some doubt in their ability to give accurate predictions and more than a little doubt in those who have loudly proclaimed that the science is settled. The standard 11-year sunspot cycle is known, and thus can be predicted, but not unexpected changes in solar activity. But even if climate models ignored solar activity entirely, all that would mean is that the effects of an increased carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere might be hastened or delayed. The greenhouse effect itself isn't in doubt, only the details are. Using doubt about the details as an excuse to avoid taking the action needed to prevent a catastrophe is not responsible. John Savard |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Want to know the REAL future of climate? Ask an astronomer
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 17:31:08 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote: "Given that our future minimum will last for at least three solar cycles, which is about 30 years, it is possible that the lowering of the temperature will not be as deep as during the Maunder Minimum," Popova said earlier in July. "But we will have to examine it in detail. We keep in touch with climatologists from different countries. We plan to work in this direction." In other words, she doesn't know. Indeed, there's nothing connecting the Maunder minimum to cooler climate. Correlation without causation, and the correlation is called into doubt by strong evidence that the cooling which occurred only happened in the northern hemisphere. Of course, even if we do enter a period of reduced solar activity (uncertain), and even if it does result in a period of cooler climate (uncertain), that doesn't address the future of climate except in the short term. In the long term, temperatures will continue to rise and atmospheric CO2 will continue to rise if swift action isn't taken, and both of those are likely to cause humans great problems. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Want to know the REAL future of climate? Ask an astronomer
On Saturday, January 13, 2018 at 6:29:07 AM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
On Saturday, January 13, 2018 at 6:24:01 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote: One thing is certain, though: Climate models have NOT taken these phenomena into account. Consequently, there must be some doubt in their ability to give accurate predictions and more than a little doubt in those who have loudly proclaimed that the science is settled. The standard 11-year sunspot cycle is known, and thus can be predicted, but not unexpected changes in solar activity. The trend is signaling an "unexpected" change: a weakening over the last 40 years: https://www.vencoreweather.com/blog/...s-next-minimum But even if climate models ignored solar activity entirely, all that would mean is that the effects of an increased carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere might be hastened or delayed. A Maunder-type minimum might delay it a hundred years or more. If that happened it might be nice to have a nice warm quilt about the earth. The greenhouse effect itself isn't in doubt, only the details are. What have you heard about the possibility of the effect of CO2 being nonlinear in its concentration? Using doubt about the details as an excuse to avoid taking the action needed to prevent a catastrophe is not responsible. John Savard We are always on the edge of catastrophe one way or another. The question is knowing which way to jump. It may be irresponsible to fix the problem now or it may not. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Want to know the REAL future of climate? Ask an astronomer
On Saturday, 13 January 2018 08:29:07 UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
On Saturday, January 13, 2018 at 6:24:01 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote: One thing is certain, though: Climate models have NOT taken these phenomena into account. Consequently, there must be some doubt in their ability to give accurate predictions and more than a little doubt in those who have loudly proclaimed that the science is settled. The standard 11-year sunspot cycle is known, and thus can be predicted, but not unexpected changes in solar activity. But even if climate models ignored solar activity entirely, all that would mean is that the effects of an increased carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere might be hastened or delayed. The greenhouse effect itself isn't in doubt, only the details are. Using doubt about the details as an excuse to avoid taking the action needed to prevent a catastrophe is not responsible. John Savard "Catastrophe." Why is it the greenloons LOVE to use scare words so much? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Want to know the REAL future of climate? Ask an astronomer
RichA wrote in
: On Saturday, 13 January 2018 08:29:07 UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote: On Saturday, January 13, 2018 at 6:24:01 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote: One thing is certain, though: Climate models have NOT taken these phenomena into account. Consequently, there must be some doubt in their ability to give accurate predictions and more than a little doubt in those who have loudly proclaimed that the science is settled. The standard 11-year sunspot cycle is known, and thus can be predicted, but not unexpected changes in solar activity. But even if climate models ignored solar activity entirely, all that would mean is that the effects of an increased carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere might be hastened or delayed. The greenhouse effect itself isn't in doubt, only the details are. Using doubt about the details as an excuse to avoid taking the action needed to prevent a catastrophe is not responsible. John Savard "Catastrophe." Why is it the greenloons LOVE to use scare words so much? Because people won't buy books telling them everything is fine, nothing to worry about. -- Terry Austin Vacation photos from Iceland: https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB "Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole." -- David Bilek Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Want to know the REAL future of climate? Ask an astronomer
Chris L Peterson wrote in
: On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 09:07:26 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote: "Catastrophe." Why is it the greenloons LOVE to use scare words so much? Because people won't buy books telling them everything is fine, nothing to worry about. The world is full of science deniers who buy exactly that kind of book. The world is full of bestseller lists packed with doom and gloom predictions of the apocalypse, because stupid people buy them. -- Terry Austin Vacation photos from Iceland: https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB "Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole." -- David Bilek Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Want to know the REAL future of climate? Ask an astronomer
On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 09:07:26 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
wrote: "Catastrophe." Why is it the greenloons LOVE to use scare words so much? Because people won't buy books telling them everything is fine, nothing to worry about. The world is full of science deniers who buy exactly that kind of book. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Want to know the REAL future of climate? Ask an astronomer
Chris L Peterson wrote in
: On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 10:09:57 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote: Chris L Peterson wrote in m: On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 09:07:26 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote: "Catastrophe." Why is it the greenloons LOVE to use scare words so much? Because people won't buy books telling them everything is fine, nothing to worry about. The world is full of science deniers who buy exactly that kind of book. The world is full of bestseller lists packed with doom and gloom predictions of the apocalypse, because stupid people buy them. Yeah. I remember the ones about the Mayan calendar, and of course there's no shortage of garbage directed at the religious (who are, by definition, stupid and credulous). Not as stupid and redulous as you are in your blind, stupid, credulous hatred, son. Nothing about global warming falls into that category, though. The risks there are very real, and the science is very good. That's might tasty Kool-Aid you're drinking there son. -- Terry Austin Vacation photos from Iceland: https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB "Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole." -- David Bilek Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
And if you still think Climate Change is real ... | Hgar | Misc | 0 | January 7th 17 06:40 PM |
These Climate Whiners can't be for real ... | Hgar | Misc | 0 | February 25th 15 08:02 PM |
Climate from an astronomer's perspective | oriel36[_2_] | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | October 2nd 14 02:26 PM |
Koch funded climate scientist reverses thinking - climate change IS REAL! | Uncarollo2 | Amateur Astronomy | 21 | August 8th 12 10:43 PM |
The real holes in climate science | Sam Wormley[_2_] | Amateur Astronomy | 9 | January 27th 10 03:04 AM |