A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Want to know the REAL future of climate? Ask an astronomer



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 13th 18, 01:31 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
RichA[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 962
Default 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."
Ads
  #2  
Old January 13th 18, 01:23 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gary Harnagel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 590
Default 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  
Old January 13th 18, 01:29 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,884
Default 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  
Old January 13th 18, 03:04 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,851
Default 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  
Old January 13th 18, 11:43 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gary Harnagel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 590
Default 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  
Old January 14th 18, 12:16 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
RichA[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 962
Default 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  
Old January 15th 18, 04:07 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 258
Default 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  
Old January 15th 18, 05:09 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 258
Default 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  
Old January 15th 18, 05:28 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,851
Default 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  
Old January 15th 18, 05:49 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 258
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.