Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Mr. Miyagi

Sun’S Fading Spots Signal Big Drop In Solar Activity

Recommended Posts

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/14/the-major-aas-solar-announcement-suns-fading-spots-signal-big-drop-in-solar-activity/

I'm not 100% sure what this all means, or how accurate the science is, but the article seems to suggest that the sun will not reach a solar maximum for the next couple of decades with obvious consequences on the Earths climate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/14/the-major-aas-solar-announcement-suns-fading-spots-signal-big-drop-in-solar-activity/

I'm not 100% sure what this all means, or how accurate the science is, but the article seems to suggest that the sun will not reach a solar maximum for the next couple of decades with obvious consequences on the Earths climate.

The sunspot cycle is an 11 year cycle. I think the last minimum (which we are now coming out of) was very deep.

What they are saying is that their models (and who knows how accurate they are) are suggesting we may have an extended low activity cycle, which in the past has corresponded to significant cooling.

So in other words get your mitts and coat on.

Personally for me it just goes to show that what with volcanoes, the sun, various other effects it is actually worth bothering about global warming if there are so many other things that can influence the climate, especially when we don't have enough data to model all tyhe effects ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you deny that that is climate change then? :D

Its just a question of whether the solar cooling will cancel out the global warming, assuming that global warming exists! laugh.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's summer, and it's shit, again.

It's been shit in Wales for 6 weeks

Edit to add

I've been wearing a wooly jumper at work over my shirt for the last two weeks. I even had to resort to a fan heater in the office for two days last week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_predict_l.gif

The last solar cycle, known as No23 was a vigorous one. The present cycle, No24 is much less so. The sunspot count is less than half what it was at this stage of the previous cycle. Beyond the fact that the cyclic rate is usually, but not always, one every 11 years these things appear to be pretty much impossible to predict, although that hasn't stopped a lot of people trying. The last minimum was in 2007 and it has been a bit chilly since then but it would be brave to make any predictions. Too many other variables are involved.

edit spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/14/the-major-aas-solar-announcement-suns-fading-spots-signal-big-drop-in-solar-activity/

I'm not 100% sure what this all means, or how accurate the science is, but the article seems to suggest that the sun will not reach a solar maximum for the next couple of decades with obvious consequences on the Earths climate.

Combine this with the large number of volcanoes (sulfur dioxide cools) and the second half of this years should cool down quite substabtially.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/14/the-major-aas-solar-announcement-suns-fading-spots-signal-big-drop-in-solar-activity/

I'm not 100% sure what this all means, or how accurate the science is, but the article seems to suggest that the sun will not reach a solar maximum for the next couple of decades with obvious consequences on the Earths climate.

Given that last year (according to NASA) was the hottest year yet recorded, it would appear that greenhouse warming is drowning out the effects of quite small changes in solar output. Low solar activity may slow warming a little, but its effect is relatively insignificant in comparison to the effect of increasing greenhouse gas concentration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that last year (according to NASA) was the hottest year yet recorded, it would appear that greenhouse warming is drowning out the effects of quite small changes in solar output. Low solar activity may slow warming a little, but its effect is relatively insignificant in comparison to the effect of increasing greenhouse gas concentration.

So a trace gas in the atmosphere has more of an effect on the earths climate than that the sun?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The green movement better give back all of its funding then.

Oh no...this will require more funding. "Although currently the sun has absolutely nothing to do with global climate" the measured drop in temperatures will obviously be masking a HUGE ceteris paribus temperature increase that will "cause us all to fry" when the solar cycle restarts, so we will need to spend even more money to understand just how much potential warming is being masked by this sun spot cylce minimum that has no effect on climate...err I mean has only a masking effect on climate and no other...err or something like that.

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest eight

Given that last year (according to NASA) was the hottest year yet recorded,

Not here it wasn't

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So a trace gas in the atmosphere has more of an effect on the earths climate than that the sun?

Than the changes in the sun over a relatively short time, yes, it can (although when it comes to warming overall water vapour contributes the most; the Earth would be too cold without it). There are plenty of factors on the Earth that can change the climate both warmer and cooler and over varying timescales.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not here it wasn't

Yes, but it was in Siberia. Well at least it was where the only temperature measuring station is based, right next to the gas-fired boiler flue of the scientist's house.

(I made that last bit up. I hope).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So a trace gas in the atmosphere has more of an effect on the earths climate than that the sun?

No.

With no sun, the surface temperature would be about the same as cosmic background, plus a bit for radiometric decay.

With Sun but no greenhouse gasses, things would improve, but an average temperature of -20C would be unplesant. (+250K)

With the Sun and Greenhouse gasses, the average temperature rises to ~10C. (+30K)

Doubling of CO2 (with the associated increase in water vapour) should increase this by another 2.5-3K.

Solar changes would perhaps come in as a tenth of this (i.e. ~0.3K)

I'd also point out that scientists have been looking for a solar-climate connection for a long time, in the full expectation of finding one, and pretty much drawn a blank. Despite which, 'climate skeptics' seem absolutely convinced that such a connection is clear and obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh no...this will require more funding. "Although currently the sun has absolutely nothing to do with global climate" the measured drop in temperatures will obviously be masking a HUGE ceteris paribus temperature increase that will "cause us all to fry" when the solar cycle restarts, so we will need to spend even more money to understand just how much potential warming is being masked by this sun spot cylce minimum that has no effect on climate...err I mean has only a masking effect on climate and no other...err or something like that.

Observations usually come before conclusions, in real science.

So... evidence of a solar cycle-climate change connection?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd also point out that scientists have been looking for a solar-climate connection for a long time, in the full expectation of finding one, and pretty much drawn a blank. Despite which, 'climate skeptics' seem absolutely convinced that such a connection is clear and obvious.

The Little Ice Age and the Maunder Minimum?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Little Ice Age and the Maunder Minimum?

Depending on the reconstruction you use, the difference between the LIA and 'Normal' was circa 0.2K, which is the kind of ballpark you might expect to see from solar variation - but there are complicating factors here incuding major eruption frequency.

But that's the apparent limit of the solar-induced range. And it's already been exceeded by a fair margin by observation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest eight

I'd also point out that scientists have been looking for a solar-climate connection for a long time, in the full expectation of finding one, and pretty much drawn a blank. Despite which, 'climate skeptics' seem absolutely convinced that such a connection is clear and obvious.

So you're claiming there's no connection between the heat output of the sun and temperatures here on earth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.

With no sun, the surface temperature would be about the same as cosmic background, plus a bit for radiometric decay.

With Sun but no greenhouse gasses, things would improve, but an average temperature of -20C would be unplesant. (+250K)

With the Sun and Greenhouse gasses, the average temperature rises to ~10C. (+30K)

Doubling of CO2 (with the associated increase in water vapour) should increase this by another 2.5-3K.

Solar changes would perhaps come in as a tenth of this (i.e. ~0.3K)

I'd also point out that scientists have been looking for a solar-climate connection for a long time, in the full expectation of finding one, and pretty much drawn a blank. Despite which, 'climate skeptics' seem absolutely convinced that such a connection is clear and obvious.

So what are you talking about above then ?! :blink:

So you're claiming there's no connection between the heat output of the sun and temperatures here on earth?

I was thinking the same. Rather strange.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest eight

I was thinking the same. Rather strange.

I've no idea of Fluffy666's scientific credentials, but talking about K's in a post (I presume Kelvin?) looks like a desperate attempt to introduce a veneer of credibility.

This is my stance on "global warming". I live on Earth. It's not getting warmer.

That is all.

Perhaps the climate scientists would like to take off their lab coats, leave their buildings once in a while, and tell us if they can honestly say that it is warmer now, today, than the same date 10, 15, 20 or even 40 years ago.

eight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 284 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.