How will Solar Minimum affect weather and climate Take 2?

[cheeky_monkey]

Just now, Ed Stone said:

I think it's important to have everyone agreeing upon which data are valid and which are not...Once we've accomplished that (and filtered out the known effects of Milankovitch cycles, plate tectonics and greenhouse gases) we can properly analyse the Solar Cyclists' hypothesis, that the sun is the main driver of climate change...?

you have more chance of surviving a firing squad

[SteveB]

3 hours ago, jethro said:

With respect, that's just silly.

Why is that silly 

[SteveB]

3 hours ago, jethro said:

It's not a competition between proxy evidence and what we measure today. As BFTV says, calculated margins of error are included and accounted for.

What would you suggest as an alternative to measuring and studying the past, in order to make sense of today or put today into context/perspective of measuring whether the world is warming/cooling when compared to previous times?

Have two completely different sets of measuring. Pre satellite measurements, and current measurements. Both can run side by side. 

[jethro]

17 minutes ago, SteveB said:

Why is that silly 

Because you suggested that current temperatures can only be compared to past temperature records, if we use the same measuring equipment - silly because, well where to begin.... lake sediments, ice cores, pollen analysis.....can you imagine waiting for the METO forecast?

[jethro]

24 minutes ago, SteveB said:

Have two completely different sets of measuring. Pre satellite measurements, and current measurements. Both can run side by side. 

Erm, we already have that.

[JeffC]

7 hours ago, jethro said:

Erm, we already have that.

Indeed and because we still have the old methods available, it should be possible to calibrate the two sets of data and extrapolate the old data to give us a clearer picture of days gone by. 

We can then overlay that with the data you mention @jethro, like sediments, pollen, tree samples etc., and further improve our understanding of climate, how it changes and where we. Might go in future.

It might, with good science and sufficient data sets show us how solar minimum will affect weather and climate, and how it had impacted previously over time. 

[SteveB]

8 hours ago, jethro said:

Erm, we already have that.

Ermm, so which one do the climate scientists use when taking into account AGW

[SteveB]

8 hours ago, jethro said:

Because you suggested that current temperatures can only be compared to past temperature records, if we use the same measuring equipment - silly because, well where to begin.... lake sediments, ice cores, pollen analysis.....can you imagine waiting for the METO forecast?

No, I think you know what I mean. 

[jethro]

2 hours ago, JeffC said:

Indeed and because we still have the old methods available, it should be possible to calibrate the two sets of data and extrapolate the old data to give us a clearer picture of days gone by. 

We can then overlay that with the data you mention @jethro, like sediments, pollen, tree samples etc., and further improve our understanding of climate, how it changes and where we. Might go in future.

It might, with good science and sufficient data sets show us how solar minimum will affect weather and climate, and how it had impacted previously over time. 

I'm pretty sure that's already been done. All the data sets, from all sources have been studied at length and in great detail already.

[JeffC]

3 minutes ago, jethro said:

I'm pretty sure that's already been done. All the data sets, from all sources have been studied at length and in great detail already.

Yes, more than likely, wish I had time to peruse, but I'm busier than a bee on overtime! 

[jethro]

1 hour ago, SteveB said:

Ermm, so which one do the climate scientists use when taking into account AGW

What's that got to do with how Solar minimum will impact the weather/climate?

This isn't a discussion about AGW is it? For the record, just so you know, I fully accept AGW and that the climate has changed as a result of our careless attitude to the world around us. I don't doubt for one second that all those scientists studying it are anything other than intelligent and diligent. I do however think our/their knowledge of the natural world is incomplete (not deliberately, just lack of studies/knowledge) and that if the sun goes into a deep minimum, it may contribute vital information to climate studies. Climate studies is a giant jigsaw, this is one small part of it.

The focus of my interest in this topic has always been the natural phenomena, for no reason other than the natural world fascinates me. I'm neither pro nor anti AGW, I'm merely endlessly curious about it all. Please don't turn this into another pro/anti debate. There's loads of temperature data sets, for the purpose of this discussion, can you not just accept they've been diligently done, intensely scrutinised and they really are the best information we can possibly have to know what has happened in the past? Short of the Tardis, it's the best we can do.

[jethro]

14 minutes ago, JeffC said:

Yes, more than likely, wish I had time to peruse, but I'm busier than a bee on overtime! 

Ditto.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Very large coronal hole bec9ming Earth Facng again, another sizeable solarwind hit for Earth turn of the months do  recurring theme more so than the norm.  I anticipate this to have an impact on the NH winter and synoptic pattern and jetstream.  We head deeper into grand minimum...Nothing to do with CO2 so let’s see where we go on this

 

BFTP

[SteveB]

Met office not taking grand solar minimum seriously enough to offset their predictions for future temperatures, upto 5c higher in 50yrs time. If we are entering grand solar minimum, surely we should see that 5c not materialise. Time will tell I guess. 

[Methuselah]

5 minutes ago, SteveB said:

Met office not taking grand solar minimum seriously enough to offset their predictions for future temperatures, upto 5c higher in 50yrs time. If we are entering grand solar minimum, surely we should see that 5c not materialise. Time will tell I guess. 

I'll be 112 years old by then!

In the mean time, if there's any evidence, anywhere out there, that suggests that a GSM can wipe a whopping 5C off average temps, I can't wait to see it...

[BornFromTheVoid]

32 minutes ago, SteveB said:

Met office not taking grand solar minimum seriously enough to offset their predictions for future temperatures, upto 5c higher in 50yrs time. If we are entering grand solar minimum, surely we should see that 5c not materialise. Time will tell I guess. 

To be fair, the Met Office are taking the slight risk of a grand minimum with as much seriousness as the science on the topic warrants - a perfectly valid approach for a scientific organisation.
There's a few studies looking at the impact of a grand minimum on global temperatures over the coming century.
Here's a sample:

On the effect of a new grand minimum of solar activity on the future climate on Earth

What influence will future solar activity changes over the 21st century have on projected global near‐surface temperature changes?

Impact of a potential 21st century “grand solar minimum” on surface temperatures and stratospheric ozone

The studies above suggest a maximum cooling of 0.3C due to a grand minimum, which ain't a whole lot compared to the maximum warming thought possible from GhG emission. Additionally, it's not even likely that a grand minimum will occur, and any cooling it might produce would only be temporary, with warming accelerating once solar activity returns to normal.

 

[JeffC]

6 minutes ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

To be fair, the Met Office are taking the slight risk of a grand minimum with as much seriousness as the science on the topic warrants - a perfectly valid approach for a scientific organisation.
There's a few studies looking at the impact of a grand minimum on global temperatures over the coming century.
Here's a sample:

On the effect of a new grand minimum of solar activity on the future climate on Earth

What influence will future solar activity changes over the 21st century have on projected global near‐surface temperature changes?

Impact of a potential 21st century “grand solar minimum” on surface temperatures and stratospheric ozone

The studies above suggest a maximum cooling of 0.3C due to a grand minimum, which ain't a whole lot compared to the maximum warming thought possible from GhG emission. Additionally, it's not even likely that a grand minimum will occur, and any cooling it might produce would only be temporary, with warming accelerating once solar activity returns to normal.

 

Put like that I'd agree but this doesn't take into account other factors that we canmot quantify the impact of, e.g. Seismic and volcanic activity which some believe are affected by (comparatively) low solar output. 

And it does appear we maybe due an extended minimum based on cyclical data... 

[BornFromTheVoid]

3 minutes ago, JeffC said:

Put like that I'd agree but this doesn't take into account other factors that we canmot quantify the impact of, e.g. Seismic and volcanic activity which some believe are affected by (comparatively) low solar output. 

And it does appear we maybe due an extended minimum based on cyclical data... 

Yep, there are other factors at play too. Plenty of evidence out there to suggest the little ice age could have been more volcanic driven than solar even.
But if we take the LIA as an example of a rare combination of enhanced volcanic activity and a deep solar low, the cooler temperature reconstructions still only have the cold peaking at less than 0.8C cooler for the globe, and about 1C for the northern hemisphere.
That's a relatively extreme example, but over the next century it still isn't going have a huge impact compared to GhG emissions, and it's very unlikely to happen.

[Gray-Wolf]

I think we must also be mindful of our orbital forcings through the L.I.A. BFTV? We had seen far norther cooing for the preceding centuries so surely , across the far north, things were primed for a rapid cooling?

The orbital forcing remains the same but the 'stacking of the deck toward cooling' has just melted away over the past century as the orbitally forced cool down was halted, and then reversed.

The loss of snow patches/retreat of glacier/low summer sea ice levels also allows greater absorption of incoming solar in a way that was not possible over the L.I.A..

It is entirely possible that these changes alone will overpower any reduction in incoming solar that another grand min could bring before we even look at future increases to our GHG burden?

[jethro]

I don't think anyone ever expected a Grand Minimum to over-ride the AGW signature of a globally warming climate, however that doesn't mean there will be no impact from it (if it happens).

Weather generally, and weather patterns more specifically, are likely to be impacted by it. Just the usual solar cycle minimum which was a bit deeper and longer than average, was shown to have impacted our weather here in 2010 (if my senile brain remembers the correct winter). Here, it was the coldest winter in something like 100 years, studies showed that the jet stream movement which allowed that cold to travel to our shores, was caused by the changes in UV due to the low solar period. That wasn't anywhere near as deep, nor quiet and prolonged a solar minimum some physicists are anticipating.

There was a discussion a few days ago in the 'Hunt for cold' model thread about the cold invading the USA again, as it has done for a number or recent winters. Apparently this degree of nation wide cold is unusual (can't comment, don't know) but I trust our model thread experts opinion and experience. Perhaps that change is due to the quieter than usual current solar cycle? If it is, or it's a combination of that and the lower arctic ice levels forcing a change in their direction, instead of over here, maybe this predicted deep minimum will have less of an impact here than previous ones? If it does, can you imagine the frustration in the model thread, deep solar minimum causing snowy mayhem in the States whilst we mooch along in a wet and mild routine

[jonboy]

We talk about the depth of this cycles minimum and possible effects on climate but cycles 19 20 21 and 22 wete towards grand maximum levels. So if a grand minimum can cool why hasnt grand max had the opposite effect

[Methuselah]

12 minutes ago, jonboy said:

We talk about the depth of this cycles minimum and possible effects on climate but cycles 19 20 21 and 22 wete towards grand maximum levels. So if a grand minimum can cool why hasnt grand max had the opposite effect

My guess would be that GSMs do indeed warm/cool the Earth; this, however, leads to another question: are their effects sufficient to render them detectable? If, as in line with current thinking, the answer is barely, this wee conundrum would have very little consequence, going forward...?

[cheeky_monkey]

2 hours ago, jethro said:

I don't think anyone ever expected a Grand Minimum to over-ride the AGW signature of a globally warming climate, however that doesn't mean there will be no impact from it (if it happens).

Weather generally, and weather patterns more specifically, are likely to be impacted by it. Just the usual solar cycle minimum which was a bit deeper and longer than average, was shown to have impacted our weather here in 2010 (if my senile brain remembers the correct winter). Here, it was the coldest winter in something like 100 years, studies showed that the jet stream movement which allowed that cold to travel to our shores, was caused by the changes in UV due to the low solar period. That wasn't anywhere near as deep, nor quiet and prolonged a solar minimum some physicists are anticipating.

There was a discussion a few days ago in the 'Hunt for cold' model thread about the cold invading the USA again, as it has done for a number or recent winters. Apparently this degree of nation wide cold is unusual (can't comment, don't know) but I trust our model thread experts opinion and experience. Perhaps that change is due to the quieter than usual current solar cycle? If it is, or it's a combination of that and the lower arctic ice levels forcing a change in their direction, instead of over here, maybe this predicted deep minimum will have less of an impact here than previous ones? If it does, can you imagine the frustration in the model thread, deep solar minimum causing snowy mayhem in the States whilst we mooch along in a wet and mild routine

a lot of people tend to confuse the east or north east of the states as the whole country..often when it is cold in the east its warm in the west and vice versa..when its is cold in the west nobody talks about it..when its cold in the east the whole USA is having a sever winter when that's not the case..probably due to the fact most major US urban areas are in the eastern half.

[BornFromTheVoid]

1 hour ago, jonboy said:

We talk about the depth of this cycles minimum and possible effects on climate but cycles 19 20 21 and 22 wete towards grand maximum levels. So if a grand minimum can cool why hasnt grand max had the opposite effect

It probably contributed to some warming earlier in the 20th century, but not much compared to anthropogenic effects. Remember we're talking a likely maximum impact of -0.3C from a Maunder style minimum this century. Solar activity has been on a downward trend since the 60s, while warming has accelerated. The chances are that solar activity is likely already contributing a -ve forcing on global temps, but it's not enough to matter.

Frpm the IPCC AR5:
Satellite observations of total solar irradiance (TSI) changes
from 1978 to 2011 show that the most recent solar cycle minimum
was lower than the prior two. This very likely led to a small
negative RF of –0.04 (–0.08 to 0.00) W m–2 between 1986 and 2008.
The best estimate of RF due to TSI changes representative for the 1750
to 2011 period is 0.05 (to 0.10) W  m–2. This is substantially smaller
than the AR4 estimate due to the addition of the latest solar cycle
and inconsistencies in how solar RF has been estimated in earlier IPCC
assessments. There is very low confidence concerning future solar forcing
estimates, but there is high confidence that the TSI RF variations
will be much smaller than the projected increased forcing due to GHG
during the forthcoming decades. {8.4.1, Figures 8.10, 8.11}

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf

[cheeky_monkey]

so what caused the cooling between 1940-80..global dimming?