• Member Statistics

    15,843
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    maley.chris78@gmail.com
    Newest Member
    [email protected]
    Joined
Sign in to follow this  
WestBabylonWeather

Grand Solar Minimum

Recommended Posts

 

 

I do not know if this is hype or not. I came across this article...I am not sure how legit it is, but I thought it was interesting....

supposedly we enter into it this year

 

"

"According to Valentina Zharkhova, a professor at Northumbria University’s department of mathematics, physics and electrical engineering, the Sun is about to enter a Grand Solar Minimum this year, which is like an extended version of the solar minimum. Instead of lasting for only a couple of years, the Grand Solar Minimum could extend for 33 years.

When this happens, the professor said Earth could experience a global drop in temperature by one degrees Celsius, which is already enough to cause severe weather conditions.  

“The Sun is approaching a hibernation period,” she said according to Express. “Less sunspots will be formed on the solar surface and thus less energy and radiation will be emitted towards the planets and the Earth.”

“The reduction in temperature will result in cold weathers on Earth, wet and cold summers, cold and wet winters,” she added. “We will possibly get big frosts as is happening now in Canada where they see [temperatures] of -50C.”"

——————

Zharkova’s model draws upon dynamo wave effects in two layers of the sun – one close to the surface, and the other deep within the convection zone. Both effects have a frequency of about 11 years, yet which are slightly different with cycles that are slightly offset to each other in time.

This pair of waves will become increasingly offset during solar cycle 24 which peaks in 2022, and will become exactly out of synch during the solar cycle 26 decade from 2030 to 2040.

Valentina Zharkova has a good record of being right. Her models have run at 93 percent accuracy, and she was of very few to correctly predict that solar cycle 24 would be weaker than cycle 23.



 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds to me like curve fitting, a tough go with only one full cycle observed.

She needs someone to find confirmatory evidence, possibly in the ice cores, of the claimed 360-380 year cycle period for grand solar minima in order for it to be taken seriously.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zharkova's research is not well received by the scientific community. Although scientists cannot eliminate the possibility of a GSM there is little evidence to suggest one is eminent.

BTW...her last published paper predicted warming as a result of solar influence that would persist until 2600. This alleged warming is said to occur because the Earth-Sun distance changes as a result of the solar barycenter wobble or solar inertial motion. Except...the Earth-Sun distance does NOT change as a result of the SIM. She posted an errata paper here in which she reduced the change in Earth-Sun by about 1 order of magnitude yet still claims +2.5C by 2700. Except...the Earth-Sun distance still does NOT change like AT ALL as a result of the SIM. You can watch the whole debacle play out on the pubpeer forum in which experts in orbital dynamics are weighing in. Nature is said to be investigating how the peer review process failed to catch this egregious mistake.

As for why she is going around proclaiming significant cooling is eminent while simultaneously proclaiming significant warming is going to continue to occur is beyond me. I have no idea.  

But let's assume a GSM does happen soon. It still won't stop the warming. You see there is a +0.6 W/m^2 (at least) energy imbalance on the planet. A GSM only reduces the TSI by about 1.0 W/m^2 which is equivalent to a radiative force of 1.0 * 0.7 / 4 = -0.18 W/m^2. And unlike CO2 forcing which can persist for millennia the GSM forcing only hangs around for a few decades. A GSM may reduce the overall energy imbalance on the planet and thus slow the rate of warming, but it won't stop it.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very weird. News12 posted this today. Creepy

 

from news 12:

”The sun is approaching a hibernation period. Less sunspots will be formed on the solar surface and thus less energy and radiation will be emitted towards the planets and the Earth. The reduction in temperature will result in wet and cold summers, cold and wet winters.”

While a degree or so may not sound like a big drop, consider that during the “Little Ice Age” of the 16-1700s (also referred to as the Maunder Minimum), temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere were reportedly 1.3°C lower than normal, which led to shorter warm seasons and ultimately agricultural ramifications.  Fruits and vegetables didn't have enough time for harvesting, which causing widespread food shortages.”

 

http://longisland.news12.com/story/41693484/could-a-mini-iceage-soon-impact-earth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jan/09/the-imminent-mini-ice-age-myth-is-back-and-its-still-wrong

Roughly every two years we’re treated to headlines repeating the myth that Earth is headed for an imminent “mini ice age.” It happened in 2013, 2015, and again just recently at the tail end of 2017.

This time around, the myth appears to have been sparked by a Sky News interview with Northumbria University mathematics professor Valentina Zharkova. The story was quickly echoed by the Daily Mail, International Business Times, Sputnik News, Metro, Tru News, and others. Zharkova was also behind the ‘mini ice age’ stories in 2015, based on her research predicting that the sun will soon enter a quiet phase.

The most important takeaway point is that the scientific research is clear – were one to occur, a grand solar minimum would temporarily reduce global temperatures by less than 0.3°C, while humans are already causing 0.2°C warming per decade. 

 

The global mean temperature difference is shown for the time period 1900 to 2100 for the IPCC A2 emissions scenario. The red line shows predicted temperature change for the current level of solar activity, the blue line shows predicted temperature change for solar activity at the much lower level of the Maunder Minimum, and the black line shows observed temperatures through 2010.

 The global mean temperature difference is shown for the time period 1900 to 2100 for the IPCC A2 emissions scenario. The red line shows predicted temperature change for the current level of solar activity, the blue line shows predicted temperature change for solar activity at the much lower level of the Maunder Minimum, and the black line shows observed temperatures through 2010. Illustration: Adapted from Feulner & Rahmstorf (2010) in Geophysical Research Letters by SkepticalScience.com

So the sun could only offset at most 15 years’ worth of human-caused global warming, and once its quiet phase ended, the sun would then help accelerate global warming once again.

The ‘mini ice age’ misnomer

Advertisement

The myth ultimately stems from a period climate scientists have coined “The Little Ice Age” (LIA). This was a modestly cool period running from about the year 1300 to 1850. It was particularly cold in the UK, where the River Thames sometimes froze over, and ‘frost fairs’ were held. 

A team led by University of Reading physicist and solar expert Mike Lockwood wrote a paper reviewing the science behind frost fairs, sunspots, and the LIA. It included the figure below showing northern hemisphere temperatures along with sunspot number and the level of volcanic particles in the atmosphere over the past millennium:

 

Sunspot number, northern hemisphere temperatures, and volcanic aerosol optical depth (AOD) around the time of the Little Ice Age.

 Sunspot number, northern hemisphere temperatures, and volcanic aerosol optical depth (AOD) around the time of the Little Ice Age. Illustration: Lockwood et al. (2017), News & Reviews in Astronomy & Geophysics

During full blown ice ages, temperatures have generally been 4–8°C colder than in modern times. As this figure shows, during the LIA, temperatures were at most only about 0.5°C cooler than the early 20th century. Thus, Lockwood calls the Little Ice Age “a total misnomer.” As the authors put it:

Compared to the changes in the proper ice ages, the so-called Little Ice Age (LIA) is a very short-lived and puny climate and social perturbation.

For comparison, temperatures have risen by a full 1°C over the past 120 years, and 0.7°C over just the past 40 years.

The minimal solar minima influence on the climate

Advertisement

The Maunder Minimum was a period of quiet solar activity between about 1645 and 1715. It’s often referred to interchangeably with ‘Little Ice Age,’ but the latter lasted centuries longer. In fact, three separate solar minima occurred during the LIA, which also included periods of relatively higher solar activity. Other factors like volcanic eruptions and human activities also contributed to the cool temperatures. In fact, a 2017 paper led by the University of Reading’s Mathew Owens concluded:

Climate model simulations suggest multiple factors, particularly volcanic activity, were crucial for causing the cooler temperatures in the northern hemisphere during the LIA. A reduction in total solar irradiance likely contributed to the LIA at a level comparable to changing land use [by humans].

 

Simulated northern hemisphere temperature changes resulting from individual climate factors, as compared to the observed changes in the top panel. The bottom panel shows a simulation with no changes to climatological factors, to illustrate the level of natural variability in the climate.

 Simulated northern hemisphere temperature changes resulting from individual climate factors, as compared to the observed changes in the top panel. The bottom panel shows a simulation with no changes to climatological factors, to illustrate the level of natural variability in the climate. Illustration: Owens et al. (2017), Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate

Advertisement

Several studies have investigated the potential climate impact of a future grand solar minimum. In every case, they have concluded that such a quiet solar period would cause less than 0.3°C cooling, which as previously noted, would temporarily offset no more than a decade and a half’s worth of human-caused global warming. These model-based estimates are consistent with the amount of cooling that occurred during the solar minima in the LIA.

Is another grand solar minimum imminent?

Although it would have a relatively small impact on the climate, it’s still an interesting question to ask whether we’re headed for another quiet solar period. Zharkova thinks so. Her team created a model that tries to predict solar activity, and suggests another solar minimum will occur from 2020 to 2055. However, other solar scientists have criticized the model as being too simple, created based on just 35 years of data, and failing to accurately reproduce past solar activity.

Ilya Usoskin, head of the Oulu Cosmic Ray Station and Vice-Director of the ReSoLVE Center of Excellence in Research, published a critique of Zharkova’s solar model making those points. Most importantly, the model fails in reproducing past known solar activity because Zharkova’s team treats the sun as a simple, predictable system like a pendulum. In reality, the sun has more random and unpredictable (in scientific terms, “stochastic”) behavior:

For example, a perfect pendulum – if you saw a few cycles of the pendulum, you can predict its behavior. However, solar activity is known to be non-stationary process, which principally cannot be predicted (the prediction horizon for solar activity is known to be 10-15 years). Deterministic prediction cannot be made because of the essential stochastic component. 

Just imagine a very turbulent flow of water in a river rapid, and you throw a small wooden stick into water and trace it. Then you do it second time and third time ... each time the stick will end up in very different positions after the same time period. Its movement is unpredictable because of the turbulent stochastic component. This is exactly the situation with solar activity.

 

 
 
Read more

Lockwood agrees that we don’t yet have a proven predictive theory of solar behavior. He has published research examining the range of possible solar evolutions based on past periods when the Sun was in a similar state to today, but as he puts it, “that is the best that I think we can do at the present time!”

Solar physicist Paul Charbonneau at the University of Montreal also concurred with Usoskin. He told me that while scientists are working to simulate solar activity, including using simplified models like Zharkova’s, 

on the standards of contemporary dynamo models theirs is extremely simple —in fact borderlining simplistic ... To extrapolate such a model outside its calibration window, you need an extra, very strong hypothesis: that the physical systems underlying the magnetic field generation retain their coherence (Phase, amplitude, etc.). As my colleague Ilya Usoskin has already explained, this is very unlikely to be the case in the case of the solar activity cycle.

Why won’t this myth die?

Zharkova believes her solar model is correct, but at best it can only try to predict when the next quiet solar period will occur. Its influence on Earth’s climate is outside her expertise, and the peer-reviewed research is clear that it would be a minimal impact.

Zharkova disagrees – I contacted her, and she told me that she believes a grand solar minimum would have a much bigger cooling effect. However, she also referenced long-debunked myths about global warming on Mars and Jupiter, and made a comment about “the preachers of global warming.” She’s clearly passionate about her research, and has the credibility that comes with publishing peer-reviewed studies on solar activity. Perhaps these factors motivate journalists to write these frequent ‘mini ice age’ stories. 

But Zharkova’s climate science beliefs are irrelevant. While she has created a model predicting an imminent period of quiet solar activity, other scientists have identified serious flaws in the model, and in any case, research has shown that another solar minimum would only have a small and temporary impact on Earth’s climate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blue wave, thanks for the post. It is informative

but I didn’t post this to debate or argue global warming. Or to take away from the global warming crowd

i don’t think it’s a myth that GSM is imminent. 
 

It does not have to be called a mini ice age call it whatever you want to

neither you or I can say for certain what’s going to happen, if anything. I just find it interesting 

Your posts are very informative but people are taking the GSM thing and spinning it into a global warming fight. That’s not what I’m doing

lets say this GSM leads to a “mini” ice age  I wonder how that impacts our winters going forward

 

here is what I will go out on a limb and say though: any human made global warming isn’t stopping the global cycles entirely, if a mini ice age is going to happen then it’s going to happen........whether or not this GSM is legit and it will or won’t happen I do not know  

 

If GSM happens and we have less radiation impacting the earth then there will be impacts, that cannot be debated  

My point: we can talk about the solar minimum and it’s impacts even though global warming exists  

”A periodic solar event called a "grand minimum" could overtake the sun perhaps as soon as 2020 and lasting through 2070, resulting in diminished magnetism, infrequent sunspot production and less ultraviolet (UV) radiation reaching Earth — all bringing a cooler period to the planet that may span 50 years.“

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ogmios said:

You should take a look at Adapt2030's youtube channel if you wish to learn more:

"It's not CO2, it's not you, it's the sun." 

- David Dubyne

 

Starts with a fund raise video and below that links to how the Oroville dam will be overtopped, from 3 years ago.

Do you have another site?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From NASA website:

“The forecast for the next solar cycle says it will be the weakest of the last 200 years. The maximum of this next cycle – measured in terms of sunspot number, a standard measure of solar activity level – could be 30 to 50% lower than the most recent one. The results show that the next cycle will start in 2020 and reach its maximum in 2025.“

 

from live science website taking from astrophysical newsletter study page:

A periodic solar event called a "grand minimum" could overtake the sun perhaps as soon as 2020 and lasting through 2070, resulting in diminished magnetism, infrequent sunspot production and less ultraviolet (UV) radiation reaching Earth — all bringing a cooler period to the planet that may span 50 years.”

Little evidence : false


ability to discuss a solar minimum even though global warming exists: check 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, WestBabylonWeather said:

Blue wave, thanks for the post. It is informative

but I didn’t post this to debate or argue global warming. Or to take away from the global warming crowd

i don’t think it’s a myth that GSM is imminent?

Some version of this story has been circulating for over 10 years now. Somebody posted it here a while back.. Here is a study explaining how tiny an influence an actual solar minimum would have on global temperatures. This study came out 10 years ago shortly after the deep solar minimum in 2009.


Current temperature data also confirm that the effect of low solar activity on the climate is very small”, notes Rahmstorf. The current has not noticeably slowed down global warming. Over the past 30 years temperatures have increased at a steady rate of 0.16 degrees Celsius per decade.

https://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press-releases/archive/2010/weakening-sun-would-hardly-slow-global-warming

Weakening Sun would hardly slow global warming

 
03/10/2010 - A new Grand Minimum of solar activity would decrease the rise of global mean temperature caused by human greenhouse gas emissions only marginally. A new modelling study by researchers of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, published online today in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, finds a temperature offset of at most 0.3 degrees Celsius until the end of the century. This is less than ten percent of the temperature rise projected under “business as usual” scenarios of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Weakening Sun would hardly slow global warming

There are no sunspots visible today. The picture was taken using the Michelson Doppler Imager of the Solar & Heliospheric Observatory Soho. Credit: SOHO (ESA & NASA)

“The notion that we are heading for a new Little Ice Age if the Sun actually entered a Grand Minimum is wrong,” says Georg Feulner, lead author of the study. “In fact,” he adds, “a minimum of solar activity would not prevent strong future warming if emissions of greenhouse gases continued at current levels.”

The observations of sunspots, visible signs of increased solar activity and irradiance, show that the Sun has been in the deepest and longest activity minimum for almost a century. Satellite measurements confirm that solar radiation has never been weaker since records started in the 1970s. Some solar physicists have suggested this could indicate the beginning of a new Grand Minimum comparable to the Maunder Minimum in the late 17th century. The Maunder Minimum is connected to the Little Ice Age with markedly lower temperatures.

To explore the effect of a 21st-century Grand Minimum Feulner and Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research used a coupled climate model that consists of models for the oceans, the atmosphere and the land surface. The researchers studied greenhouse gas emission paths corresponding to the A1B and A2 scenarios of the IPCC with intermediate and strong growth of emissions during the 21st century. The authors also accounted for volcanic eruptions, which are unpredictable, by randomly spreading the same eruptions as in the 20th century over the 21st century.

They performed three simulation experiments with different solar forcing: one without a Grand Minimum, repeating the last 11-year solar activity cycle until 2100, and two with the Sun entering a new Grand Minimum lasting till the end of the century. In these minima, solar irradiance is reduced by 0.08 and 0.25 percent of its value in 1950, the former value corresponding to the reconstructed reduction of solar irradiance during the Maunder Minimum.

grand minimum en
Projected changes to the global mean temperature depend more strongly on emissions than solar activity. Credit: PIK

With an 11-year solar activity cycle continued until 2100, global temperatures are modelled to rise 3.7 or 4.5 degrees Celsius above the 1961 to 1990 average level, depending on the emission scenario. These results agree well with recent projections, the authors report. For the reconstruction of the Maunder Minimum under the two IPCC emission scenarios, the temperatures in 2100 lie about 0.1 degrees Celsius lower. For the experiment with a stronger reduction of solar irradiance of 0.25 percent of the 1950 value, the difference is 0.26 degrees Celsius under both emission scenarios.

“Most likely, a new Grand Minimum of solar activity would diminish global mean temperatures in the year 2100 by about 0.1 or 0.2 degrees Celsius,” says Stefan Rahmstorf, head of Earth System Analysis at PIK. Even taking into account all uncertainties in the temperature reconstruction, the forcings, and the model physics, the overall uncertainty is estimated to be at most a factor of three, so the solar cooling effect would very likely not exceed 0.3 degrees.

“A new Maunder-type solar activity minimum cannot offset the global warming caused by human greenhouse gas emissions,” the authors conclude. Moreover, any offset of global warming due to a Grand Minimum of solar activity would merely be a temporary effect, since solar minima typically last for several decades to a century at most.

“Current temperature data also confirm that the effect of low solar activity on the climate is very small”, notes Rahmstorf. The current minimum has not noticeably slowed down global warming. Over the past 30 years temperatures have increased at a steady rate of 0.16 degrees Celsius per decade. According to the surface temperature analysis by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the year 2009, despite the solar minimum, was the second-warmest year on record globally, beaten only by 2005, and by far the warmest in the southern hemisphere. The month of January 2010 was the second warmest January on record globally, beaten only by January 2007.

Article: Feulner, G., and S. Rahmstorf (2010), On the effect of a new grand minimum of solar activity on the future climate on Earth, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L05707, doi:10.1029/2010GL042710

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, WestBabylonWeather said:

Ok blue wave. I guess we will see what a GSM does since it’s happening in our lifetimes

since the science is conflicting. 
 

but again everything above is referencing global warming which I am not talking about

Global warming is mentioned since you would never notice such a tiny temporary GSM cooling.

Most likely, a new Grand Minimum of solar activity would diminish global mean temperatures in the year 2100 by about 0.1 or 0.2 degrees Celsius,” says Stefan Rahmstorf, head of Earth System Analysis at PIK. Even taking into account all uncertainties in the temperature reconstruction, the forcings, and the model physics, the overall uncertainty is estimated to be at most a factor of three, so the solar cooling effect would very likely not exceed 0.3 degrees.

Over the past 30 years temperatures have increased at a steady rate of 0.16 degrees Celsius per decade. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t think anyone really knows what a GSM will do hence the conflicting science. 
 

I just think a conversation can be had about the potential of a grand solar minimum and impacts without injecting global warming into it that’s all

i don’t discuss global warming or politics on forums usually lol. It never ends well

I read a report from some icelandic scientists about the GSM I’m trying to find it again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope a GSM does occur soon. This would given scientists an unprecedented opportunity for studying both the internal solar dynamics but also its effects on the climate system.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Solar activity is bottoming out as cycle 24 wraps up. So hard to see the sun getting much less active than current.  increased activity is much more likely over the next 5 years as cycle 25 starts ramping.

SolarIrrad+Sunspots.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, WestBabylonWeather said:

Its pointing toward a solar minimum....so despite global warming maybe the weather will get quite interesting

climate estimates are rarely spot on, we will just have to wait and see.....

The projections have done very well so far.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

regardless....if the prediction is correct about a long period of solar minimum i don't think we will know exactly what the impacts will be until it happens.....i think its an interesting topic because it only happens every so often and it may happen in our lifetimes....human global warming or no human global warming im still interested.

the little ice age was a combination of volcanic ash in the atmosphere and the solar minimum period....so it was a few factors....im not saying we are going into an ice age now or being a conspiracy theorist but there has to be some impact if it occurs again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, chubbs said:

Here is the latest forecast for cycle 25 from NASA. Cycle 25 expected to be very similar to 24.

https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/news/solar-cycle-25-forecast-update

These forecasts don't have a strong record, as we still don't really have a good model of the sunspot origin.

So the possibility of a surprise remains very real.

 

That said, we are beginning to see intermittent cycle 25 sunspots, so the new cycle is right on schedule by all appearances. That may be an indication that no sudden slump is in the cards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

Have to wonder about that, it appears to use sunspots as a measure of total solar irradiance. Possibly that is only true within the range that we have experience with.

We don't really know the sun that well, we can't even forecast the next cycle of sunspots, so I'm not confident that we can extrapolate TSI back to conditions of the solar minimum with any confidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, etudiant said:

Have to wonder about that, it appears to use sunspots as a measure of total solar irradiance. Possibly that is only true within the range that we have experience with.

We don't really know the sun that well, we can't even forecast the next cycle of sunspots, so I'm not confident that we can extrapolate TSI back to conditions of the solar minimum with any confidence.

Sunsets are not the only measure utilized. The TSI graph is based on methodology found here:

https://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/data/historical_tsi/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

Sunsets are not the only measure utilized. The TSI graph is based on methodology found here:

https://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/data/historical_tsi/

The key article, by Wu et al, is paywalled, but the abstract indicates TSI based on the satellite record since 1978 and before then on a consensus series of  sunspot numbers. 

The modeling may be valid, but as there is no actual data for what happens during a prolonged sunspot minimum, I'm not comfortable using extrapolations from the normal cycle lows.

Clearly something changed during the grand minima and it seems optimistic to assert that TSI was largely unaffected.

 

Separately, the volcanic impact on the LIA remains uncertain. My impression is there were no huge eruptions in the 1600s or the early 1700s, so the LIA cold is hard to blame on volcanoes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.