Are we about to enter another mini ice age ?

[VillagePlank]

Surely rainfall = cloud which locally will surpress temperatures, the very warm years tend to warm because they have long hot summers i.e HP over the top of us or drawing in southerly plumes, which generally dont give high CET (precipitations) as they are local.

Yes, of course, and the idea that rainfall and lower temperatures are associated concurs, weakly, with the CET/UKP data.

Our new found 'extremes' however are supposed to be associated the other way around, and given a 30 year running variance, I would expect to see a much higher variance correlated with higher temperatures (testing the hypothesis that our weather extremes are associated with warmer temperatures) but the signal simply isn't there. Even if you only take the last 30, or 20 years, no change to greater variance in rainfall (ie droughts and flooding) due to warmer temperatures.

The caveat, of course, is that the CET is a local climate index, and not a good proxy for the global temperature record.

Edited March 25, 2013 by Boar Wrinklestorm

[Methuselah]

In the meantime, as with the link between CO₂ and warming, I can't see how a prolonged period of low solar-output could cause anything other than global (hence, probably local) cooling...

[Iceberg]

but do we have a period of prolonger solar output ?. We certainly have a quiet sun re sunspots and flares, but is solar ouput and solar energy really on the decline ?

I've yet to see the evidence personally.

So to keep the thread on topic, is there any evidence that we are on our way to a new mini ice age ? I've not seen anything yet that supports that.

Edited March 25, 2013 by Iceberg

[jethro]

The problem with discussing solar is that its the biggest component of the more combative climate change discussion and generally results in looping arguements, currently their is no evidence of a) CET declining to anything like the mini ice age levels, nor to a CET that led to the mini ice age levels and Solar irradiance (SI) is nowhere near the levels scene during the LI (it is SI which essentially is the measurement of the energy of the photons etc(very simply)). sunspots are something else and something very contraversial.

http://lasp.colorado...orical_tsi.html

Last point we keep hearing about weaker Polar jets etc, but i have never seen any evidence for this, there is a general northern hemisphere blocking index how does this compare over the last 2-5-10 years ?

It's only combative if people choose to make it that way.

This isn't a discussion which is in anyway designed to counter the AGW argument, all climate change discussion should take place in the specific area of the forum, which isn't here.

This is to discuss the prospect of the possibility of a new LIA and as the last one was caused by a deep Solar minimum and there is another predicted one imminent, it stands to reason Solar discussions will dominate the discussion. TSI wasn't responsible for the weather changes during that period, nor is it expected to be the cause if we enter another LIA. As for sunspots, there is nothing controversial about them other than how many we can expect to see in the future.

The word future is the key, we are at the stage where a deep minimum is proposed. The last Solar cycle was quieter than expected, the predictions and forecasts for the next one have repeatedly been revised lower and lower. We're currently approaching Solar max, the level of which is turning out to be lower than many low points of previous cycles and shows no signs of getting any bigger. Where will this lead in terms of weather we can expect here?

[Methuselah]

but do we have a period of prolonger solar output ?. We certainly have a quiet sun re sunspots and flares, but is solar ouput and solar energy really on the decline ?

I've yet to see the evidence personally.

Which is why the thread only asks the question, ice. Don't all attempts at prediction contain a host of all-other-things-remaining-constant type of assumptions?

[Iceberg]

yes pete to a degree, but we keep hearing about solar cycles etc as if they were responsible for the LIA, they were not....Weak SI was responsible for the lia, in conjection with weak SI goes less sunspots etc, but less sunspots does not equate with weak SI....

We can try and predict anything, but atm there is no evidence for a mini ice age for the UK, anywhere.

[VillagePlank]

Surely rainfall = cloud which locally will surpress temperatures, the very warm years tend to warm because they have long hot summers i.e HP over the top of us or drawing in southerly plumes, which generally dont give high CET (precipitations) as they are local.

Just to finish off (sorry for the OT stuff, ran out of precipitation data),

Here's the relationship between CET temp and UKP on a day by day basis (n > 30,000)

At extremes, it precipitates less, which pretty much confirms what we all know.

[Iceberg]

It's only combative if people choose to make it that way.

This isn't a discussion which is in anyway designed to counter the AGW argument, all climate change discussion should take place in the specific area of the forum, which isn't here.

This is to discuss the prospect of the possibility of a new LIA and as the last one was caused by a deep Solar minimum and there is another predicted one imminent, it stands to reason Solar discussions will dominate the discussion. TSI wasn't responsible for the weather changes during that period, nor is it expected to be the cause if we enter another LIA. As for sunspots, there is nothing controversial about them other than how many we can expect to see in the future.

The word future is the key, we are at the stage where a deep minimum is proposed. The last Solar cycle was quieter than expected, the predictions and forecasts for the next one have repeatedly been revised lower and lower. We're currently approaching Solar max, the level of which is turning out to be lower than many low points of previous cycles and shows no signs of getting any bigger. Where will this lead in terms of weather we can expect here?

But thats wrong jethro, it wasnt caused by a deep solar minimum re sunspots, it was caused by a reduction in the energy coming from the sun i.e SI ! they are not the same.

[jethro]

but do we have a period of prolonger solar output ?. We certainly have a quiet sun re sunspots and flares, but is solar ouput and solar energy really on the decline ?

I've yet to see the evidence personally.

So to keep the thread on topic, is there any evidence that we are on our way to a new mini ice age ? I've not seen anything yet that supports that.

Lots of discussion can be found here: http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/

Also

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/coolingthermosphere.html

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/solar_minimum09.html

The Sun periodically goes through quiet phases, depth and magnitude is never certain. The original predictions for this cycle varied, most have now proven to be incorrect and NASA have revised the expected maximum to a lower figure many times. The Sun may yet surprise everyone and wake up with a bang but it's looking increasingly unlikely.

[Evening thunder]

I suppose it's possible that increases in temperature lead to increases in precipitation?

Sorry, no evidence in the CET/UKP record to support that idea, and once again, lower temperatures are weakly associated with greater variance, and, also, we've seen greater variance in precipitation in England and Wales in the past, rather than recently. By quite some way, actually.

So next time someone says, it's raining hard because it's warmer , *cough*, tell 'em where to shove it. (actually, it might well be raining because the planet is warmer (ie external factors to the UK climate system) but it isn't because the CET climate is warmer - maybe a distinction there for the die-hards)

Unless I am reading/interpreting this wrong surely the variance could also be increase by anomalously dry spells, like could be caused by colder synoptics such as a dominance of easterly/northerly winds in winter?

There's also the point Iceberg raises.

It's a basic concept that a warmer atmosphere can hold more water, and so has the ability precipitate out more water if the mechanisms are there. That is of course why there are much more torrential rains in tropical areas.

With a generally warmer atmosphere, holding more moisture, maybe more of the moisture could be transported to the UK even if the result is increased cloud and therefore suppressed surface temps to some degree.

Of course, in the UK that would be complicated by things like more southerly tracking lows in colder synoptics possibly bringing more rain to the UK, particularly the south, which may be a stronger influence here (so as you say maybe there won't be a correlation between a warmer CET and more precip), and some parts of the world of course may get drier instead due things like to more high pressure. But in a warmer world given a warmer version of the same synoptics with lows over the UK, I'd expect an increased amount of rainfall would be probable.

about the ice age thing, IMO I doubt we area heading towards a mini ice age, unless the sun goes even quieter than previous minima or there's a major volcanic eruption, or the Thermohaline Circulation shuts down or changes dramatically (which could be induced by warming in the future, possibly). Shifts in weather patterns partly due to the sun, probably. However there is a little factor of far higher CO2 concentrations (whatever the cause) that should prevent temps falling to LIA levels. We have also had record smashing warm months like April 2011 (after the same in April 2007) but no actual record breaking cold months (December 2010 very close or the only exception).

Edited March 25, 2013 by Stormmad26

[jethro]

But thats wrong jethro, it wasnt caused by a deep solar minimum re sunspots, it was caused by a reduction in the energy coming from the sun i.e SI ! they are not the same.

No.

That's what used to be thought as it was considered the only variable. What is now considered to be the cause are the changes to the UV levels and the impact they have on the jet stream, ozone levels and cooling of the atmosphere. There is also a causal link between this and SSW, making them more likely to happen and thus impact upon our weather. I posted links on the first page of this thread which explains in greater detail, also I think on page 3???

[Iceberg]

Lots of discussion can be found here: http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/

Also

http://www.nasa.gov/...ermosphere.html

http://www.nasa.gov/..._minimum09.html

The Sun periodically goes through quiet phases, depth and magnitude is never certain. The original predictions for this cycle varied, most have now proven to be incorrect and NASA have revised the expected maximum to a lower figure many times. The Sun may yet surprise everyone and wake up with a bang but it's looking increasingly unlikely.

I'll try one last time jethro, then i'll leave it, a quiet sun, does not mean a reduction in energy from the sun i.e wavelength energy. SI is not showing anykind of drop off its actually very static in its cycles upto and including last year.

If anybody can show that the amount of energy coming from the sun is declining then i am all ears/eyes but i've get to see it. A quiet sun is a reference to the big flares and sunspots, not general wavelength energy.

[VillagePlank]

Call me simple, but given that any given sunspot increases the brightness of the sun, brightness is more photons, more photons is more energy? And, TSI, and Sunspot counts are correlated .... and therefore a prediction of lower sunspots means less brightness, less photons, less energy?

ftp://pmodwrc.ch/pub/publications/AdvSpR_29_1409.pdf

Edited March 25, 2013 by Boar Wrinklestorm

[Iceberg]

No.

That's what used to be thought as it was considered the only variable. What is now considered to be the cause are the changes to the UV levels and the impact they have on the jet stream, ozone levels and cooling of the atmosphere. There is also a causal link between this and SSW, making them more likely to happen and thus impact upon our weather. I posted links on the first page of this thread which explains in greater detail, also I think on page 3???

I feel like i am banging my head a bit which is why i left these thread alone, UV levels are measured by SI, not sunspots !!!!

Call me simple, but given that any given sunspot increases the brightness of the sun, brightness is more photons, more photons is more energy? And, TSI, and Sunspot counts are correlated .... and therefore a prediction of lower sunspots means less brightness, less photons, less energy?

ftp://pmodwrc.ch/pub/publications/AdvSpR_29_1409.pdf

Yes to a point Boar, but i am waiting to see it, is energy from the sun (SI) declining.....?......

[Methuselah]

But thats wrong jethro, it wasnt caused by a deep solar minimum re sunspots, it was caused by a reduction in the energy coming from the sun i.e SI ! they are not the same.

I think I can see what you're saying: that, currently, SI is as high as it was pre-2007?

[Iceberg]

I think I can see what you're saying: that, currently, SI is as high as it was pre-2007?

Yes Pete, SI will rise and fall as part of the sun cycle, however the actual level of sun spots within that cycle does not determine the amount of SI, the current cycle is an excellent example of that i.e SI is consistent with previous cycles over the last 30-40 years, however sunspots are very low compared with the same. However UV is measured with SI and not sunspots, therefore we are not seeing a reduction in UV unless we see a reduction in SI, its a physically impossible.

[UV-RAY]

What I find amazing and off topic is how a trace gas can reduce global temps by X-amount, yet solar output is considered irrelevant.

[jethro]

I'll try one last time jethro, then i'll leave it, a quiet sun, does not mean a reduction in energy from the sun i.e wavelength energy. SI is not showing anykind of drop off its actually very static in its cycles upto and including last year.

If anybody can show that the amount of energy coming from the sun is declining then i am all ears/eyes but i've get to see it. A quiet sun is a reference to the big flares and sunspots, not general wavelength energy.

Have you read the links I provided?

You seem to be interpreting it along the lines of 'no one turned the central heating down, therefore if it's still on, it must still be hot'. That's not the expected impact from a quieter Sun, it is the change caused to the upper atmosphere which is directly linked to changes in UV levels.

There's also some studies which link lower Solar activity to greater Volcanic activity, more and bigger Volcanic eruptions can induce cooling but it's not a topic I know much about.

Iceberg: see here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8615789.stm

The full paper is available here but it's behind a pay wall: http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/users/users/1353

Edited March 25, 2013 by jethro

[Methuselah]

I think what Jethro is saying is that, even though the sum of the energy over all wavelengths might stay the same, their respective proportions can change...the reduction in UV (of itself) affects the Jet Stream in ways that simply summing SI does not explain. Quantum Resonance effects perhaps?

[TonyH]

mispost

Edited March 25, 2013 by TonyH

[Iceberg]

Have you read the links I provided?

You seem to be interpreting it along the lines of 'no one turned the central heating down, therefore if it's still on, it must still be hot'. That's not the expected impact from a quieter Sun, it is the change caused to the upper atmosphere which is directly linked to changes in UV levels.

There's also some studies which link lower Solar activity to greater Volcanic activity, more and bigger Volcanic eruptions can induce cooling but it's not a topic I know much about.

Dawn please please please, i am not getting cross, and i agree UV levels effect atmosphere, however you measure UV levels in total with SI not with a quiet sun or sunspots. UV levels are not low unless you can show me a graph like the one i posted that differs from that.

[TonyH]

I think something is up, we've had some real crazy weather over the past 10 years, off the top of my head.

2003: Hottest temperature recorded, severe heatwaves, very dry

2005-2006 winter: Coldest for a decade I believe

Summer 2006: Record breaking heat, hottest month ever for many, hottest temperature ever for many, dry

April 2007: Hottest and driest April ever for many

Summer 2007: One of the wettest ever, mass flooding

Summer 2008: One of the wettest ever, mass flooding

February 2009: Most severe cold and snowy spell or some time

Summer 2009: Yet another poor summer

November 2009: One of the wettest months ever, mass flooding

Winter 2009-2010: One of the coldest winters ever, coldest ever in Scotland

Summer 2010: Poor summer for many again.

November/December 2010: Coldest, driest December ever for many, record breaking cold and snow

2011: Wettest year ever in Scotland, one of the driest ever for central/SE parts, drought

Early 2012: Severe drought in many places, hosepipe bans, the driest 18month period for many since 1975-1976

March 2012: Warmest and driest March ever for many, temperature records broken

April 2012: One of the wettest Aprils ever, mass flooding

Summer 2012: Wettest summer ever for many, mass flooding

2012: Wettest year ever for many

Later 2012: Continuing severe flooding, one of the wettest Decembers ever

March 2013: One of the coldest Marches ever, record breaking snowfalls

Probably forgot some too. That's a lot of extremes and record breaking weather in a short time, especially since 2007.

A combination of a weaker more meandering jet stream due to reduced temperature contrast between the Poles, low solar activity, loss of Arctic sea ice, sea currents being disrupted most likely. A little Ice Age, well maybe, there are similarities. If it happened before not so long ago it can happen again.

It could be argued that most if not all decade long periods will contain great variability, extremes and record breaking?

Edited March 25, 2013 by TonyH

[Iceberg]

I think what Jethro is saying is that, even though the sum of the energy over all wavelengths might stay the same, their respective proportions can change...the reduction in UV (of itself) affects the Jet Stream in ways that simply summing SI does not explain. Quantum Resonance effects perhaps?

But is UV reducing....thats what i am saying pete, its a nice statement, but there is no evidence that UV is reducing ! I am happy for peeps to provide evidence. The best evidence we have that i know about is that it isnt . It doesnt matter how many times the statement is made it doesnt make it accurate. A simple graph that shows UV decreasing anybody ?

[knocker]

Some sun graphs.

[VillagePlank]

The evidence supports the assertion that Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) and Sunspot Number (SSN) are correlated. Even the simplest of simplest linear analysis clearly shows the correlation,

The more sunspots you have the higher the total solar irradiance. Even better than that, the higher total solar irradiance, never occurs, when sunspot numbers are low. Bear in mind that current CO₂ R² ~ 0.7. Therefore, the argument can only be whether one causes the other, presumably, whether sunspots cause an increase in total solar irradiance.

Sunspot numbers:

http://sidc.oma.be/sunspot-data/

TSI:

http://lasp.colorado...ta/tsi_data.htm

Edited March 25, 2013 by Boar Wrinklestorm