Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Solar cycle  (Read 18714 times)

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 7756
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 1133
  • Likes Given: 521
Re: Solar cycle
« Reply #50 on: December 19, 2018, 10:16:07 PM »
Yes, be careful not too wade too deep into the solar stuff, and end up in climate risk denier territory.
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9330
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3729
  • Likes Given: 28
Re: Solar cycle
« Reply #51 on: December 21, 2018, 10:33:59 AM »
'Tis the solstice.

Winter Solstice 2018 will be at 22:23 hrs Greenwich mean Time (GMT) on Friday, 21 December.

This is the solar cycle that interests me most, apart from the butterfly wings image of the sunspot cycles.

Imagine it is pre-history, and you do not know if this year the sun will start to rise higher in the sky again. Perhaps this time it will get lower and lower in the sky until......

"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 896
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Solar cycle
« Reply #52 on: December 21, 2018, 01:21:56 PM »
'Tis the solstice.

Winter Solstice 2018 will be at 22:23 hrs Greenwich mean Time (GMT) on Friday, 21 December.

This is the solar cycle that interests me most, apart from the butterfly wings image of the sunspot cycles.

Imagine it is pre-history, and you do not know if this year the sun will start to rise higher in the sky again. Perhaps this time it will get lower and lower in the sky until......
We probably should pop an extra virgin in the volcano just to be sure. ???
Terry

Sleepy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 122
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Solar cycle
« Reply #53 on: December 21, 2018, 02:38:34 PM »
Not interested in the dark side of this earth cycle at all, my 5360Wp PV's has produced 0.06kWh so far today and that's pretty much it, it's getting dark(er). A little snow on them for once...
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9330
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3729
  • Likes Given: 28
Re: Solar cycle
« Reply #54 on: December 21, 2018, 04:00:59 PM »
Not interested in the dark side of this earth cycle at all, my 5360Wp PV's has produced 0.06kWh so far today and that's pretty much it, it's getting dark(er). A little snow on them for once...
Earth Cycle !?

We are in pre-history and you are telling the assembled throng it is not the sun rising and falling at various times of the year but movement of the earth around the sun and inclination of the earth's axis wot's doing it.

The Priest decides, to general acclamation, forget the virgin, it is you that's being thrown into the volcano. Insulting the Sun God is dangerous.

Come to think of it, there are plenty of evangelical churches today where a similar outcome would be likely.
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

Sleepy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 122
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Solar cycle
« Reply #55 on: December 21, 2018, 09:05:33 PM »
Yet another study using development of the solar polar field strength claims a similar or slightly stronger cycle 25. Open access, just adding Fig 4.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-07690-0
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

vox_mundi

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4113
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2400
  • Likes Given: 319
Re: Solar cycle
« Reply #56 on: January 23, 2019, 05:12:31 PM »
Debunking the Solar-Cycle/North Atlantic Winter Weather Connection
https://phys.org/news/2019-01-debunking-solar-cyclenorth-atlantic-winter-weather.html

Quote
... in a research paper published in Nature Geoscience Monday, Gabriel Chiodo, Jessica Oehrlein and Lorenzo Polvani, scientists at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and the School of Engineering at Columbia University and other colleagues present evidence that there is no definite connection between the solar cycle and the NAO.

The research essentially debunks what was considered a "demonstrated link" between the 11-year sun cycle and winter weather over the northern hemisphere and found it is actually, for the most part, a coincidental alignment. With the use of sophisticated computer modeling and extended observations, the new research shows that before 1960 evidence of any correlation simply vanishes.

"What we're saying is, the theory was basically a mirage," said Polvani.


Gabriel Chiodo et al. Insignificant influence of the 11-year solar cycle on the North Atlantic Oscillation, Nature Geoscience (2019).
“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” ― Leonardo da Vinci

Insensible before the wave so soon released by callous fate. Affected most, they understand the least, and understanding, when it comes, invariably arrives too late

Alexander555

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1264
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 135
  • Likes Given: 44
Re: Solar cycle
« Reply #57 on: May 03, 2019, 10:30:04 AM »

vox_mundi

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4113
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2400
  • Likes Given: 319
Re: Solar cycle
« Reply #58 on: May 28, 2019, 07:27:45 PM »
The Sun Follows the Rhythm of the Planets
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-05/hd-tsf052719.php

Study Corroborates Influence of Planetary Tidal Forces On Solar Activity
https://phys.org/news/2019-05-corroborates-planetary-tidal-solar.html

One of the big questions in solar physics is why the Sun's activity follows a regular cycle of 11 years. Researchers from the Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf (HZDR), an independent German research institute, now present new findings, indicating that the tidal forces of Venus, Earth and Jupiter influence the solar magnetic field, thus governing the solar cycle. The team of researchers present their findings in the journal Solar Physics

As with the gravitational pull of the Moon causing tides on Earth, planets are able to displace the hot plasma on the sun's surface. Tidal forces are strongest when there is maximum Venus-Earth-Jupiter alignment; a constellation that occurs every 11.07 years. But the effect is too weak to significantly perturb the flow in the solar interior, which is why the temporal coincidence was long neglected. However, the HZDR researchers then found evidence of a potential indirect mechanism that may be able to influence the solar magnetic field via tidal forces: oscillations in the Tayler instability, a physical effect that, from a certain current, can change the behavior of a conductive liquid or of a plasma. Building on this concept, the scientists developed their first model in 2016; they have since advanced this model in their new study to present a more realistic scenario.

In the hot plasma of the sun, the Tayler instability perturbs the flux and the magnetic field, itself reacting very sensitively to tiny forces. A small thrust of energy is enough for the perturbations to oscillate between right-handed and left-handed helicity (the projection of the spin onto the direction of momentum). The momentum required for this may be induced by planetary tidal forces every eleven years—ultimately also setting the rhythm at which the magnetic field reverses the polarity of the sun.

... the scientists systematically compared historical observations of solar activity from the last thousand years with planetary constellations, statistically proving that the two phenomena are linked. "There is an astonishingly high level of concordance: what we see is complete parallelism with the planets over the course of 90 cycles," said Frank Stefani, lead author of the study. "Everything points to a clocked process."

Besides influencing the 11-year cycle, planetary tidal forces may also have other effects on the sun. For example, it is also conceivable that they change the stratification of the plasma in the transition region between the interior radiative zone and the outer convection zone of the sun (the tachocline) in such a way that the magnetic flux can be conducted more easily. Under those conditions, the magnitude of activity cycles could also be changed, as was once the case with the Maunder Minimum, when there was a strong decline in solar activity for a longer phase.

In the long term, a more precise model of the solar dynamo would help scientists to quantify climate-relevant processes such as space weather more effectively, and perhaps even to improve climate predictions one day.



F. Stefani et al. A Model of a Tidally Synchronized Solar Dynamo, Solar Physics (2019)

Quote
... we focus on the 11.07-years alignment periodicity of the tidally dominant planets Venus, Earth, and Jupiter, whose persistent synchronization with the solar dynamo is briefly touched upon. The typically emerging dynamo modes are dipolar fields, oscillating with a 22.14-years period or pulsating with a 11.07-years period, but also quadrupolar fields with corresponding periodicities. ...  Phase coherent transitions between dipoles and quadrupoles, which are reminiscent of the observed behavior during the Maunder minimum, can easily be triggered by long-term variations of dynamo parameters, but may also occur spontaneously even for fixed parameters. Further interesting features of the model are the typical second intensity peak and the intermittent appearance of reversed helicities in both hemispheres.
“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” ― Leonardo da Vinci

Insensible before the wave so soon released by callous fate. Affected most, they understand the least, and understanding, when it comes, invariably arrives too late

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Solar cycle
« Reply #59 on: May 28, 2019, 07:36:42 PM »
Fascinating!  :o

BTW, Vox Mundi, thanks a lot for a constant stream of very interesting links!

johnm33

  • Guest
Re: Solar cycle
« Reply #60 on: May 28, 2019, 11:21:11 PM »
Fascinating!  :o

BTW, Vox Mundi, thanks a lot for a constant stream of very interesting links!
+1

Tor Bejnar

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3637
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 633
  • Likes Given: 409
Re: Solar cycle
« Reply #61 on: May 29, 2019, 12:10:45 AM »
I always wondered, "Why 11 years?"

This news reminds me of a song I grew up with.  An expanded (and different) version is here:


What I remember:
Twinkle twinkle little star
I don't wonder what you are
Teacher told us yesterday
How you come and go away
And that you are a great big mass
Of all sorts of burning gas
Teacher told us that she recons
Light goes millions of miles a second
So if a great big water spout
Should some day come put you out
We would never know your fate
'Til long after that date
Twinkle twinkle little star
I don't wonder what you are

I'm pretty sure I forgot some verses.  The internet didn't help.
Arctic ice is healthy for children and other living things.

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Solar cycle
« Reply #62 on: May 29, 2019, 07:33:34 AM »
Quote
Should some day come put you out

Growing up with Max und Moritz, i see similarities in morbidity...

johnm33

  • Guest
Re: Solar cycle
« Reply #63 on: May 29, 2019, 09:49:02 AM »
"space weather" ignore the source read Nelsons work.

Tom_Mazanec

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3644
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 625
  • Likes Given: 316
Re: Solar cycle
« Reply #64 on: May 30, 2019, 06:31:15 PM »
I hope the Eddy Minimum (as it will probably be called) holds off one more solar cycle, so that the Parker Solar Probe can study Solar Cycle 25.
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

DrTskoul

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1454
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 211
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Solar cycle
« Reply #65 on: July 30, 2019, 10:44:44 AM »

Alexander555

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1264
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 135
  • Likes Given: 44
Re: Solar cycle
« Reply #66 on: December 25, 2019, 05:25:42 PM »

Hefaistos

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 719
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 472
Re: Solar cycle
« Reply #67 on: December 25, 2019, 11:10:20 PM »
What!? No Maunder minimum?

vox_mundi

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4113
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2400
  • Likes Given: 319
Re: Solar cycle
« Reply #68 on: February 24, 2020, 06:33:56 PM »
Solar Storms May Leave Gray Whales Blind and Stranded
https://today.duke.edu/2020/02/solar-storms-could-scramble-whales-navigational-sense
https://phys.org/news/2020-02-solar-storms-gray-whales-stranded.html

A new study reported in the journal Current Biology on February 24 offers some of the first evidence that gray whales might depend on a magnetic sense to find their way through the ocean. This evidence comes from the discovery that whales are more likely to strand on days when there are more sunspots.

... What's especially unique about the new study, according to the researchers, is that they were able to explore how a solar storm might cause whales to strand themselves.

"Is it that the solar storms are pushing the magnetic field around and giving the whales incorrect information—for example, the whale thinks it is on 4th Street, but it is actually on 8th?" asks Jesse Granger of Duke University. "Or is it that the solar storms are messing up the receptor itself—the whale thinks it is on 4th Street, but has just gone blind?

"We show that the mechanism behind the relationship between solar storms and gray whales, if it is an effect on a magnetic sensor, is likely caused by disruption to the sense itself, not inaccurate information. So, to put this back into the earlier metaphor, the big secondary finding of this paper is that it is possible that the reason the whales are stranding so much more often when there are solar storms is because they have gone blind, rather than that their internal GPS is giving them false information."

Granger and her colleagues studied 186 live strandings of the gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus). The data showed those strandings occurred significantly more often on days with high sunspot counts than on randomly chosen days. On days with a high sunspot count, the chance of a stranding more than doubled.

Further study showed that strandings happened more often on days with a high solar radio flux index, as measured from Earth, than on randomly chosen days. On days with high RF noise, the likelihood of strandings was more than four times greater than on randomly selected days.

Much to Granger's surprise, they found no significant increase in strandings on days with large deviations in the magnetic field. Altogether, the findings suggest that the increased incidence of strandings on days with more sunspots is explained by a disruption of whales' magnetoreceptive sensor, rather than distortion of the geomagnetic field itself.



Current Biology, Granger et al.: "Gray whales strand more often on days with increased levels of atmospheric radio-frequency noise"
“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” ― Leonardo da Vinci

Insensible before the wave so soon released by callous fate. Affected most, they understand the least, and understanding, when it comes, invariably arrives too late

Gumbercules

  • NewMembers
  • New ice
  • Posts: 63
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Solar cycle
« Reply #69 on: April 10, 2020, 03:01:16 AM »
We already have deniers crying 'foul' because our modern observing notes spots that could not have been viewed over the Maunder minimum?  As such we will not see any 'maunder like minimum' as we will note spots and not a blank sun.
Then we have the major volcanics over the period of the M.M. and the impacts high particulate contents of the atmosphere meant for observation ( and also global temps as we found out recently with the run of small eruptions leading to a slowdown in temp gains?).

Personally i am more concerned will the aiding of Northern blocking over periods of low sunspot numbers and the impacts this may drive on our AGW forced atmosphere?

I was going to start a new post asking about sunspots, because I'm occasionally an amateur astronomer and it's disappointing to look at the sun and not see anything other than granules.

But the sun has been remarkably clear for a prolonged time. Surely this has an effect on Earth's climate. Everyone says it's minimal, but that seems silly. The sun clearly has the final vote over the climate of the inner planets, though it can only do so much/little so long as it doesn't vary significantly (See Venus vs. Mercury).

Regarding what you said, our modern abilities mean we can spot smaller spots. This means we will not have a Maunder Minimum? Sorry, that's the opposite of the truth. What it does mean is if we have a Maunder Minimum, it will actually likely be more severe, because we CAN spot smaller spots. So the actual Maunder Minimum certainly had more spots than were noted, while if we note no spots, it means there are actually no spots. But even if there are not no spots, we can still have fewer sunspots than during the actual Maunder Minimum given that we now have better data. So your point seems completely backwards. Sure, it's harder for us to document no spots, but not harder for us to reach a similarly prolonged solar minimum output. 

By the way, the current sunspot count is zero, even with our better technology.

Tom_Mazanec

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3644
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 625
  • Likes Given: 316
Re: Solar cycle
« Reply #70 on: April 10, 2020, 09:54:32 AM »
The Maunder Monimum was probably just like this one.
Sunspots only change solar luminosity by a fraction of a percent.
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

kassy

  • Moderator
  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2470
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1182
  • Likes Given: 1027
Re: Solar cycle
« Reply #71 on: April 10, 2020, 05:19:53 PM »
Then there is this:

The Maunder Minimum, also known as the "prolonged sunspot minimum", is the name used for the period around 1645 to 1715

The Maunder Minimum occurred with a much longer period of lower-than-average European temperatures which is likely to have been primarily caused by volcanic activity.

and

The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period.[2] Although it was not a true ice age, the term was introduced into scientific literature by François E. Matthes in 1939.[3] It has been conventionally defined as a period extending from the 16th to the 19th centuries,[4][5][6] but some experts prefer an alternative timespan from about 1300[7] to about 1850.[8][9][10]

The NASA Earth Observatory notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, all separated by intervals of slight warming.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

So that happened at the same time but it was not the sunspots causing the LIA.

My favorite theory is that the deaths in the America´s caused it. The amount of lives lost was staggering as were the changes in landscape. This was what probably triggered the LIA.

Bit more on that:
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2555.0.html
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

Gumbercules

  • NewMembers
  • New ice
  • Posts: 63
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Solar cycle
« Reply #72 on: April 10, 2020, 08:28:13 PM »
The Maunder Monimum was probably just like this one.
Sunspots only change solar luminosity by a fraction of a percent.

Yeah I looked up some stuff and it appears it's on the order of 0.1% since we have had the ability to record it. On the other hand, stars change. And the sun will brighten, but only by about 1% every hundred million years. But it does mean in a billion years Earth will be uninhabitable unless we move the entire planet, which is actually possible.

Hefaistos

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 719
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 472
Re: Solar cycle
« Reply #73 on: July 08, 2020, 01:03:00 PM »
The solar forcing implemented in the new generation of CMIP6 models seem to forecast a Maunder minimum. Solar cycles declining all the way to 2100.

Figure from attached pdf page 9.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2020, 01:15:44 PM by Hefaistos »

Stephan

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1377
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 486
  • Likes Given: 238
Re: Solar cycle
« Reply #74 on: July 09, 2020, 04:28:55 PM »
On the first glimpse the difference between the old CMIP5 and the new CMIP6 model looks large. But then ... please check the y axis. It is so pumped up to see any difference at all. The largest difference of both models at around 2080 are just 0,085 % or 1.25 W/m². Hard to believe that this has a relevant input if you look at all the GHG in the atmosphere...
It is too late just to be concerned about Climate Change

kassy

  • Moderator
  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2470
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1182
  • Likes Given: 1027
Re: Solar cycle
« Reply #75 on: July 09, 2020, 04:39:35 PM »
Also the CMIP6 data probably does not forecast it but uses it as an input.
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

blumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Solar cycle
« Reply #76 on: July 09, 2020, 04:40:32 PM »
General question: How do we feel about people who bring up the solar cycle? I mean, there is a clear CC-denial inherent with it, no?

kassy

  • Moderator
  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2470
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1182
  • Likes Given: 1027
Re: Solar cycle
« Reply #77 on: July 09, 2020, 05:00:38 PM »
Or confusion.
Anyone that reads the whole thread can see it is not that important.
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

The Walrus

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 693
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 101
  • Likes Given: 43
Re: Solar cycle
« Reply #78 on: July 09, 2020, 05:22:55 PM »
Solar cycles have been debated extensively concerning their relation to past warming/cooling episodes.  The correlation is very good.  Whether the solar cycle can [partially] compensate for AGW in the short term is unknown.  During the Maunder minimum, solar output fell to ~1360.2 for about 70 years.  That graph does not project anything that low during this century.  Avoiding a topic just because it has some CC-denial attachment just denies its significance. 

kassy

  • Moderator
  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2470
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1182
  • Likes Given: 1027
Re: Solar cycle
« Reply #79 on: July 10, 2020, 02:28:57 PM »
Scroll up to #71 and read it?

Whether the solar cycle can [partially] compensate for AGW in the short term is unknown.

That is a total BS claim. Do read the wiki entries for the solar cycle and solar irradiance.
Then there is this:

Quote
Over the past 150 years, global warming has more than undone the global cooling that occurred over the past six millennia, according to a major study published June 30 in Nature Research's Scientific Data, "Holocene global mean surface temperature, a multi-method reconstruction approach."

The findings show that the millennial-scale global cooling began approximately 6,500 years ago when the long-term average global temperature topped out at around 0.7°C warmer than the mid-19th century. Since then, accelerating greenhouse gas emissions have contributed to global average temperatures that are now surpassing 1°C above the mid-19th century.

Post #2 in
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,3168.msg272854.html#new

1360.2 vs 1361 (annual average and that is only TOA).

It is either funny or sad that you post that below ´Anyone that reads the whole thread can see it is not that important.´
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

KiwiGriff

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 836
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 419
  • Likes Given: 148
Re: Solar cycle
« Reply #80 on: July 10, 2020, 10:26:41 PM »
Potholer 54 covered this subject in his latest video.
As usual has links to the actual science.
0.2 to 0.3C cooling if we do enter a grand minimum. A grand minimum will only offset at most fifteen years of warming at our present rate.
Animals can be driven crazy by placing too many in too small a pen. Homo sapiens is the only animal that voluntarily does this to himself.
Notebooks of Lazarus Long.
Robert Heinlein.

The Walrus

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 693
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 101
  • Likes Given: 43
Re: Solar cycle
« Reply #81 on: July 10, 2020, 10:45:25 PM »
Scroll up to #71 and read it?

Whether the solar cycle can [partially] compensate for AGW in the short term is unknown.

That is a total BS claim. Do read the wiki entries for the solar cycle and solar irradiance.
Then there is this:

Quote
Over the past 150 years, global warming has more than undone the global cooling that occurred over the past six millennia, according to a major study published June 30 in Nature Research's Scientific Data, "Holocene global mean surface temperature, a multi-method reconstruction approach."

The findings show that the millennial-scale global cooling began approximately 6,500 years ago when the long-term average global temperature topped out at around 0.7°C warmer than the mid-19th century. Since then, accelerating greenhouse gas emissions have contributed to global average temperatures that are now surpassing 1°C above the mid-19th century.

Post #2 in
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,3168.msg272854.html#new

1360.2 vs 1361 (annual average and that is only TOA).

It is either funny or sad that you post that below ´Anyone that reads the whole thread can see it is not that important.´

The only BS is comparing the short term to 6,500 years.  0.7C is not all the different from 1C in the short term.  The main claim regarding solar irradiance is that it results in colder higher latitude winters.  Exactly the same time frame that AGW has its greatest influence. 

KiwiGriff

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 836
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 419
  • Likes Given: 148
Re: Solar cycle
« Reply #82 on: July 10, 2020, 11:22:06 PM »
You are not talking about the same things .
The long term progression in earths orbit are not the same as the short term effects of solar cycles.
 https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2948/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/
The progression of the milannkovith cycles is the reason for the slow cooling trend in the last 6500 years not total solar irradiance. AGW has the opposite effect it warms the arctic as anyone reading this blog will know is happening perhaps three times faster than the rate the entire planet is warming at. 
You also seem to not know the difference between Transient climate response, Equilibrium climate sensitivity and Earth system sensitivity
The Short term warming trend is not equal to the full effects of our changes to the composition of the earths atmosphere.
If we could hold CO2  at the present level we will continue to warm for tens of thousands of years.
Our current 1.3C over pre industrial temperatures is only about 1/3 to 1/2 the warming we can expect in the next few hundred years or so from present levels of CO2.
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/transient-and-equilibrium-climate-sensitivity/#:~:text=The%20latter%20is%20often%20quantified,%2C%20doubling%20requires%2070%20years.)

One word sums your position up .
Denial.
Animals can be driven crazy by placing too many in too small a pen. Homo sapiens is the only animal that voluntarily does this to himself.
Notebooks of Lazarus Long.
Robert Heinlein.

The Walrus

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 693
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 101
  • Likes Given: 43
Re: Solar cycle
« Reply #83 on: July 10, 2020, 11:31:05 PM »
Exactly!  That is why trying to compare solar cycles over the next few decades to the progression over 6,500 years is ridiculous.  I think you are the one who does not seem to know the long term warming effects.  Equilibrium would occur in significantly less time than tens of thousands of years.  Just like the recent ‘hiatus’ solar changes could have a greater temperature effect than AGW. 

oren

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6301
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2315
  • Likes Given: 1957
Re: Solar cycle
« Reply #84 on: July 10, 2020, 11:54:06 PM »
The Nile ain't just a river in Africa, that's all I can say on the subject.

The Walrus

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 693
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 101
  • Likes Given: 43
Re: Solar cycle
« Reply #85 on: July 11, 2020, 12:02:33 AM »
Yes, some people just cannot accept that not everything results in warming.  The average has been increasing, but that does not mean that all aspects of that average are warming.  Some people just choose to deny those aspects that do not agree with their own beliefs about what the warming entails.

kassy

  • Moderator
  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2470
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1182
  • Likes Given: 1027
Re: Solar cycle
« Reply #86 on: July 11, 2020, 12:16:48 AM »
The solar cycle change is way smaller then the change over those thousands of years which tells you it is not that important.

Also if the average increases and not all aspects are warming (which is natural) you still have the majority of input increasing the average etc. But it´s not some waxing and waning background cycle.

Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

The Walrus

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 693
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 101
  • Likes Given: 43
Re: Solar cycle
« Reply #87 on: July 11, 2020, 01:09:49 AM »
Exactly!  Comparing changes over the next few decades to several thousand years is my entire point!  There is no comparison.  However, changes over the next few years or decades can be.  Hence, it can be important over the short term.  When averaged over millennia, they tend to even out, and are replaced by longer term changes, like Milankovitch cycles.

Rod

  • Guest
Re: Solar cycle
« Reply #88 on: July 11, 2020, 04:12:18 AM »
General question: How do we feel about people who bring up the solar cycle? I mean, there is a clear CC-denial inherent with it, no?

You are very correct. That Walrus guy is a denier, but he is not very good. If people want to engage him to make him look silly, I can understand.  It is kind of like a sport when the ice data is coming in slowly and we have nothing else to do.

He makes statements that are totally unfounded that deniers try to use to disrupt legitimate conversations about AGW.

The problem that he and other deniers have on ASIF is that our members are too smart to fall for that shit!

I look at these conversations as comical entertainment. But, I would also agree with you if you ban deniers to keep them from polluting our forums.

The Walrus

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 693
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 101
  • Likes Given: 43
Re: Solar cycle
« Reply #89 on: July 11, 2020, 05:07:56 AM »
Rod,
Your attempts at avoiding the subject by distraction is reminiscent of the sleazy lawyer who tries to smear the expert witness because he cannot refute his testimony.  If my statements are truly unfounded, then you should be able to present evidence in rebuttal, instead of mud-slinging.  You are correct in saying that the members here are too smart to fall for that xxx.  However it is yours that they are too smart to fall for.  We do not advance our position by denying the truth and banning those who present it.  Rather, we acknowledge the truth and try to put it the proper perspective.  When you deny the truth, you are no better than the true deniers, and just provide more ammunition for their fodder. 

Rod

  • Guest
Re: Solar cycle
« Reply #90 on: July 11, 2020, 05:23:49 AM »
I love you too Walrus 😘 I hope you have a great weekend!

El Cid

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1255
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 542
  • Likes Given: 102
Re: Solar cycle
« Reply #91 on: July 11, 2020, 07:58:33 AM »
Let's talk science then.

You say that a Maunder minimum would reduce radiative forcing by 0,8 W/m2. IPCC says that human net radiative forcing has been cca 2,2 W/m2 since 1750 (going from 280 to 405 ppm Co2 and other effects added). This means that a Maunder minimum would have the same effect as reducing Co2 by 45ppm   because  0,8/2,2* (405-280) =45

As annual growth of Co2 is 2-2,5 ppm, then 45 ppm is equal to cca 20 years of emissions. So a Maunder minimum type of solar reduction would counterbalance 20 years worth of Co2 emissions.

Is the above correct?

jens

  • New ice
  • Posts: 96
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 60
  • Likes Given: 43
Re: Solar cycle
« Reply #92 on: July 11, 2020, 08:09:35 AM »
General question: How do we feel about people who bring up the solar cycle? I mean, there is a clear CC-denial inherent with it, no?

Well, for deniers solar cycle is just a "hopium" to cling onto, because they are too afraid of death. "Well now we are getting some warm years, but then it will be cool again, so everything will be alright."

When talking to deniers, science or reason doesn't matter. You have to include an entirely different topic to look at - and that is facing the fact of mortality.

blumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Solar cycle
« Reply #93 on: July 11, 2020, 09:31:48 AM »
The average has been increasing, but that does not mean that all aspects of that average are warming

As potholer said in his video, this is just another version of 'it's snowing, so CC isn't real'.

Walrus, please, for the love of God, take my advice and drop the topic!

blumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Solar cycle
« Reply #94 on: July 11, 2020, 09:37:55 AM »
Is the above correct?

Given what i just told Walrus, don't be sad if you don't get an answer, El Cid. ;)

Hefaistos

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 719
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 472
Re: Solar cycle
« Reply #95 on: July 11, 2020, 10:44:04 AM »
...
1360.2 vs 1361 (annual average and that is only TOA).
...

As the Earth Energy Imbalance at TOA is less than 1 W/sq.m. this effect is quite substantial.

This was written by J. Hansen, known for not being a denier, 8 years ago:

"If other climate forcings were unchanged, increasing Earth's radiation to space by 0.5 W/m2 would require reducing CO2 by ~30 ppm to 360 ppm. However, given that the imbalance of 0.58±0.15 W/m2 was measured during a deep solar minimum, it is probably necessary to increase radiation to space by closer to 0.75 W/m2, which would require reducing CO2 to ~345 ppm, other forcings being unchanged. Thus the Earth's energy imbalance confirms an earlier estimate on other grounds that CO2 must be reduced to about 350 ppm or less to stabilize climate (Hansen et al., 2008)."

If we go into a Maunder minimum, as the CMIP6 forcings show, it will give us several decades more to implement renewables etc.

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_16/
« Last Edit: July 11, 2020, 11:43:53 PM by Hefaistos »

El Cid

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1255
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 542
  • Likes Given: 102
Re: Solar cycle
« Reply #96 on: July 11, 2020, 01:56:31 PM »
Is the above correct?

Given what i just told Walrus, don't be sad if you don't get an answer, El Cid. ;)

My question was rhetorical as I am almost sure that my calculations are correct (I came to the same ballpark estimates as Hansen BTW)...

but feel free to refute the numbers

Hefaistos

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 719
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 472
Re: Solar cycle
« Reply #97 on: July 12, 2020, 12:30:29 AM »
Also the CMIP6 data probably does not forecast it but uses it as an input.

Correct.
"Abstract. This paper describes the recommended solar forcing dataset for CMIP6 and highlights changes with respect to CMIP5. The solar forcing is provided for radiative properties, namely total solar irradiance (TSI), solar spectral irradiance (SSI), and the F10.7 index as well as particle forcing, including geomagnetic indices Ap and Kp, and ionization rates to account for effects of solar protons, electrons, and galactic cosmic rays. This is the first time that a recommendation for solar-driven particle forcing has been provided for a CMIP exercise. The solar forcing datasets are provided at daily and monthly resolution separately for the CMIP6 preindustrial control, historical (1850–2014), and future (2015–2300) simulations. For the preindustrial control simulation, both constant and time-varying solar forcing components are provided, with the latter including variability on 11-year and shorter timescales but no long-term changes. For the future, we provide a realistic scenario of what solar behavior could be, as well as an additional extreme Maunder-minimum-like sensitivity scenario. This paper describes the forcing datasets and also provides detailed recommendations as to their implementation in current climate models."

References:

https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/10/2247/2017/

https://solarisheppa.geomar.de/cmip6

wehappyfew

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 103
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Solar cycle
« Reply #98 on: July 12, 2020, 05:10:32 PM »
...
1360.2 vs 1361 (annual average and that is only TOA).
...

As the Earth Energy Imbalance at TOA is less than 1 W/sq.m. this effect is quite substantial.


Hefaistos,

You've made two simple errors in this statement.

1. TOA irradiance of ~1360 must be applied to the surface of the Earth, reducing the difference between Maunder Minimum and normal irradiance by a factor of 4. 1360 is the amount received on the sunlit side of a flat plate, the amount received by a sphere is 1/4 of that.

2. Albedo reduces the effect further.


The net reduction is therefore not 1361 - 1360.2 = 0.8

It is more like 240.5 - 240.35 = 0.15 W/m^2


Hefaistos

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 719
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 472
Re: Solar cycle
« Reply #99 on: July 13, 2020, 10:15:26 AM »
...
1360.2 vs 1361 (annual average and that is only TOA).
...

As the Earth Energy Imbalance at TOA is less than 1 W/sq.m. this effect is quite substantial.


Hefaistos,

You've made two simple errors in this statement.

1. TOA irradiance of ~1360 must be applied to the surface of the Earth, reducing the difference between Maunder Minimum and normal irradiance by a factor of 4. 1360 is the amount received on the sunlit side of a flat plate, the amount received by a sphere is 1/4 of that.

2. Albedo reduces the effect further.


The net reduction is therefore not 1361 - 1360.2 = 0.8

It is more like 240.5 - 240.35 = 0.15 W/m^2

The heating of the Earth is a result of the Earth Energy Imbalance at TOA. See attached chart from CERES.
93% of the heat uptake goes into the Ocean, and is measured as an increase in the ocean heat content, ohc.
The rest goes to the atmosphere.
What is measured at the surface is of course relevant for those that live there. But the surface temperatures are in essence just a secondary aspect in relation to EEI. The same with albedo.
This is what the 'ceres people' write:
"The planetary heat uptake accounts for the entire energy added to or removed from the climate system. It arguably provides a more fundamental measure of global warming than global mean surface temperature, which is influenced by other decadal processes internal to the climate at the air-sea interface."

Thus, I didn't make any error at all.

https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/science/