• Hello, please take a minute to check out our awesome content, contributed by the wonderful members of our community. We hope you'll add your own thoughts and opinions by making a free account!

Learning Global Warming facts and fiction

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's a lose-lose argument; can anybody deny the "trends" over the last 30 -40 years or so; no. I can draw on my own experience of being able to skate on the ponds and C&O Canal up in the DC area back in the 70's routinely; sledding down a hill onto the country club lake that had ice 2 feet thick, etc. Doubtful there's been many years that's been done lately.

On the other hand is the "science" settled as claimed; highly doubtful. Man in his arrogance thinks he can say for certain he has caused the climate to change; has he really? There is no such thing as settled science, science is a process.

At the end of the day does a slightly warming planet really hurt mankind? Greenland was farmed centuries ago; is that a bad thing? Was the land mass where coastal cities now exist underwater during that timeframe, no. Have we further encroached into coastal areas that for centuries helped protect the land mass further inland, yes. Does that encroachment allow for the possibility of disaster, absolutely.

Does what is going on justify hundreds of billions of dollars being spent when that money could've been used for education/farming techniques/irrigation techniques/etc, I say no. Should we develop alternative sources of energy, absolutely. Is that energy reliable, without quantum leaps in storage capacity, it is not. Should there be a blend of technologies, yes.

I do find one hypothesis about the current state of earths weather extremely intriguing which is the enhanced solar activity over the last hundred years or so has greatly contributed to the warming of the oceans thus potentially vastly affecting the natural weather cycles to such a degree that it has contributed to the warming. There appears to be a lag effect with that enhanced activity so the current solar decrease could potentially affect the cycles however it will be many years before that effect can be quantified or observed.

At the end of the day it's a no-win argument, I firmly believe the man-made argument helps justify huge expenses that in the end contribute zero to the betterment of mankind and only help line the pockets of a few when those resources could be expended towards the actual betterment of mankind.
Bingo! And as for the previous post that "I once was a climate change denier"........this proves my point..it's like a religion one finds to some, but...no one is saying there isn't and hasn't and won't be climate change so big deal. You aren't some enlightened, "save" person, you just want to blame mankind and take trillions of dollars and cost jobs,etc to transfer wealth for maybe a tiny, tiny change to anything...that's the difference.
 
Bingo! And as for the previous post that "I once was a climate change denier"........this proves my point..it's like a religion one finds to some, but...no one is saying there isn't and hasn't and won't be climate change so big deal. You aren't some enlightened, "save" person, you just want to blame mankind and take trillions of dollars and cost jobs,etc to transfer wealth for maybe a tiny, tiny change to anything...that's the difference.

What are you blabbering about... I really don't understand why you're trying to make a big deal about the fact that carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, CFCs, etc. are greenhouse gases that intercept outgoing longwave radiation emitted from earth's surface and result in a net warming of the planet, this fact has actually been settled time and time again in the lab, academia, and verified by actual observations, if you want to argue about it, then conduct your own research and get it published. Of course, instead of acknowledging that I've delved into the appreciable uncertainties associated w/ climate change (including cloud, albedo feedbacks, etc) you decided take this aforementioned statement about GHGs completely out of context and erroneously spew garbage that we're trying to insinuate the entire "argument" is settled. Smh... I'm literally an undergraduate college atmospheric sciences/meteorology student who's fascinated by the science of climate change, and have been for several years, a) this is not a "religion" b) where do you think I'm going to transfer trillions of dollars c) I really don't care about the politics of AGW, over long periods of time, the science eventually wins out and drives policies and policy makers d) Natural variability alone or constituting a majority of the forcing can not explained the observed alterations to the climate in the last several decades and hence, mankind is at the very least somewhat responsible for the observed & verifiable warming in the past few centuries e) could really care less what you think about me...
It's a lose-lose argument; can anybody deny the "trends" over the last 30 -40 years or so; no. I can draw on my own experience of being able to skate on the ponds and C&O Canal up in the DC area back in the 70's routinely; sledding down a hill onto the country club lake that had ice 2 feet thick, etc. Doubtful there's been many years that's been done lately.

On the other hand is the "science" settled as claimed; highly doubtful. Man in his arrogance thinks he can say for certain he has caused the climate to change; has he really? There is no such thing as settled science, science is a process.

At the end of the day does a slightly warming planet really hurt mankind? Greenland was farmed centuries ago; is that a bad thing? Was the land mass where coastal cities now exist underwater during that timeframe, no. Have we further encroached into coastal areas that for centuries helped protect the land mass further inland, yes. Does that encroachment allow for the possibility of disaster, absolutely.

Does what is going on justify hundreds of billions of dollars being spent when that money could've been used for education/farming techniques/irrigation techniques/etc, I say no. Should we develop alternative sources of energy, absolutely. Is that energy reliable, without quantum leaps in storage capacity, it is not. Should there be a blend of technologies, yes.

I do find one hypothesis about the current state of earths weather extremely intriguing which is the enhanced solar activity over the last hundred years or so has greatly contributed to the warming of the oceans thus potentially vastly affecting the natural weather cycles to such a degree that it has contributed to the warming. There appears to be a lag effect with that enhanced activity so the current solar decrease could potentially affect the cycles however it will be many years before that effect can be quantified or observed.

At the end of the day it's a no-win argument, I firmly believe the man-made argument helps justify huge expenses that in the end contribute zero to the betterment of mankind and only help line the pockets of a few when those resources could be expended towards the actual betterment of mankind.

I've heard this line a billion times... Solar activity has been declining since the 1960s and we're currently nearing lows that we haven't seen in at least a few hundred years. Any connection between tropospheric variability and solar activity is elusive at best. AGW skeptics also tried to pull this same argument (again I was one of them) at the beginning of the 2010s when we came out of the deepest solar minimum in over a century, and ironically global temperatures have reached all-time record highs within several years, the likes of which haven't been observed since at least the medieval warming period, if not longer. If there was any *very* significant, direct impact on surface temperatures, we would have seen it already, but instead temperatures have continued to warm, and they're warming at a faster rate now than they were in the 1960s and 70s when solar activity was higher. If you want to discuss the potential implications of ultraviolet radiation across a solar cycle (which varies on the order of 6-9%) and its impact on ozone concentrations, the Brewer Dobson Circulation, Stratospheric Semi-Annual Oscillation, Quasi-Biennial Oscillation, the polar vortex, cloudiness, and trace constituents and aerosols in the stratosphere, mesosphere, and even upper troposphere modulated by some of these aforementioned processes that's far more reasonable than total irradiance.
 
I've heard this line a billion times... Solar activity has been declining since the 1960s and we're currently nearing lows that we haven't seen in at least a few hundred years. Any connection between tropospheric variability and solar activity is elusive at best. AGW skeptics also tried to pull this same argument (again I was one of them) at the beginning of the 2010s when we came out of the deepest solar minimum in over a century, and ironically global temperatures have reached all-time record highs within several years, the likes of which haven't been observed since at least the medieval warming period, if not longer. If there was any *very* significant, direct impact on surface temperatures, we would have seen it already, but instead temperatures have continued to warm, and they're warming at a faster rate now than they were in the 1960s and 70s when solar activity was higher.

Since the globe has yet to cool, I'm growing more and more skeptical about the sun having a nontrivial role as time goes on without cooling. However, I'm still not yet giving up on it. That includes the idea that a reduced solar wind could indirectly cause cooling in addition to the direct influence of reduced total flux. (Example: I've read about a theory that a decreased protective solar wind leads to increases in cosmic rays (CR's) reaching Earth, which in turns results in increased cloudcover due to the increased cloud nuclei provided by the increase in CR's. This increased cloudcover then cools ground temperatures...again just an unproven theory but it sounds interesting.)

The main thing I'd like you to comment on is lag. We just had the most active 50 years of sunspots (1950-2000) of the last 400++ years:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle#/media/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png

Could there be a delayed reaction to the warming peak caused by this?
Here's why I ask:

1. On a sunny day with no clouds or changes in airmass/wind direction, the high temperature of the day is typically several hours after the sun hits its highest point as opposed to being at the same time. So, there's an obvious several hour lag.

2. Daily warmest normals in much of the country are typically a good month or so after the summer solstice. So, that's another lag.

So, wouldn't it possibly make sense that there could be a multiyear lag before warming stopped after the most active 50 years of sun in 350+ years?

Please try to answer this in as simple a way as you can so as to not go over my nongenius head lol. ;) By the way, I consider myself a skeptic of some of the more alarmist predictions rather than an AGW "denier". I believe that the warming has been due to an unknown % from AGW and an unknown % from natural cycles including solar.
 
Last edited:
Since the globe has yet to cool, I'm growing more and more skeptical about the sun having a nontrivial role as time goes on without cooling. However, I'm still not yet giving up on it. That includes the idea that a reduced solar wind could indirectly cause cooling in addition to the direct influence of reduced total flux. (Example: I've read about a theory that a decreased protective solar wind leads to increases in cosmic rays (CR's) reaching Earth, which in turns results in increased cloudcover due to the increased cloud nuclei provided by the increase in CR's. This increased cloudcover then cools ground temperatures...again just an unproven theory but it sounds interesting.)

The main thing I'd like you to comment on is lag. We just had the most active 50 years of sunspots (1950-2000) of the last 400++ years:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle#/media/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png

Could there be a delayed reaction to the warming peak caused by this?
Here's why I ask:

1. On a sunny day with no clouds or changes in airmass/wind direction, the high temperature of the day is typically several hours after the sun hits its highest point as opposed to being at the same time. So, there's an obvious several hour lag.

2. Daily warmest normals in much of the country are typically a good month or so after the summer solstice. So, that's another lag.

So, wouldn't it possibly make sense that there could be a multiyear lag before warming stopped after the most active 50 years of sun in 350+ years?

Please try to answer this in as simple a way as you can so as to not go over my nongenius head lol. ;) By the way, I consider myself a skeptic of some of the more alarmist predictions rather than an AGW "denier". I believe that the warming has been due to an unknown % from AGW and an unknown % from natural cycles including solar.

We certainly can't entirely rule out solar variability has having a non-negligible role in earth's climate and there's definitely some intrinsic memory in the coupled climate system w/ some appreciable lags, while other phenomena such as energetic particle fluxes (protons), (which can cause sudden and rather swift alterations in the stratospheric polar &/or tropospheric Greenland vortex), variations in earth's Van Allen radiation belts, and electrostatic charges (these are generated by high energy solar radiation in the middle-upper atmosphere that can create electric charges that stimulate the production of water vapor CCN (cloud condensation nuclei)), and even ozone variability, are more immediate. In fact, in the mid-upper atmosphere (where ironically few observations exist and GCMs struggle) many coupled models actually struggle (at least in comparison to the troposphere), but this is where the impacts from solar variability are more immediate. The vast scale of the climate system, multitude of associated, sources, sinks, and relatively inefficient phenomena that re-distribute, sequester, and express the internal energy and the heat in the system contribute to a lag effect wrt solar activity. The lag on both the diurnal, seasonal, inter annual scales is due to the amount of incoming heat in the system outpacing outgoing radiation (due in part to thermal inertia (esp of the Ocean), vertical and horizontal mixing of air masses, local/regional albedo, adjacent topography, aerosols ?, etc) and is what leads to this observed lags. On the other hand, this balance and lag has been undoubtedly (& increasingly) disrupted by the increase in the concentrations of gases like CO2, NO2, H2O (indirectly), CH4, etc. Although I've really tried to boil things down some here, the harsh and rather unfortunate reality is, esp when it comes to climate, there is no truly simple way answer to these questions, and much of the solar research actually still remains over my head and the field pertaining to solar activity relatively speaking is still very primitive and misunderstood. While uncertainty remains regarding the contributions of natural and anthropogenic forcings on climate (as is the case w/ most things in meteorology) it's at least probable if not likely, that integrated "direct irradiance-based solar variations" induce appreciably less significant radiative forcing than anthroprogenic greenhouse gas emissions and by an order of magnitude or more...
 
Last edited:
Here's a few nice solar papers that would definitely be worth your time
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.1812.pdf
https://www.mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/publikationen/Reports/WEB_BzE_113.pdf
Amazingly, some of the concepts I gleaned in the latter paper several years ago actually worked for the most recent multi-year Super El Nino

Thanks for these links! I found them to be interesting, especially the first one. i noticed the mention of increase in GCR's during sunspot downturns. So, it is apparently more well-known than I realized.
 
I just had a chance to read this web site's CC thread today for the first time and I will add that anyone could make a compelling argument for climate change as a whole. However, I do not support some of the hyperbole that is associated with the political stance. Our polar ice caps and glaciers are melting. There's no denying this. I believe this is one data set that is fairly solid.
Having said that, I agree that some of the continental landmass and global temperature data has been manipulated in the past to fit into a certain group's agenda. On the flip side, Webber eloquently explained why we can't ignore the ramifications of increased GHGs that continues to be dumped into our atmosphere.
We all know that there is a vast difference between weather and long-term climate, but just look at our current state, as compared to the 1970's, and wonder if it will continue to warm or will we see a cooling trend due to some natural variable. I have a feeling that some interesting or possibly troubling times lie ahead.
Remember, there are some great minds on both sides of the fence and it's important to keep our feelings out of the equation when trying to understand the science.
 
Here is a link that I don"t recall having seen before now:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle#/media/File:Sunspots_11000_years.svg

IF this is accurate, the sun just had its most active 100 years of sunspots averaged out in over 2,000 years!! I had already known that 1950-2000 was the most active 50 year period in 400++ years. However, this is even more telling IF accurate and further leads me to not discount the possibility that the sun has been at least a nontrivial contributor to the 2-3 F global warming over the last 100 years. If so, it could very well be that there is a multiyear lag before significant grand solar related minimum cooling starts to show up.

Eric and others, any comments about this graph? Have you seen this before?
 
Despite the Arctic being warmer than normal every single day this past fall (easily the warmest Sep-Dec back at least to 1958....just click on each year to see this), winter (warmest Jan-Feb at least back to 1958), and early spring, it has actually been a little colder than normal for every day of about the last 3 weeks. Currently, it is nearly 2C colder than normal. Anomalies as we head toward summer are almost always small. Regardless, every little bit helps as far as preserving Arctic ice/minimizing worldwide sea level rise is concerned, especially after such a ridiculously warm fall and winter:

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

Aside: Note that the coldest month's normal is, interestingly enough, in Feb. rather than in Jan.
 
Last edited:
Despite the Arctic being warmer than normal every single day this past fall (easily the warmest Sep-Dec back at least to 1958....just click on each year to see this), winter (warmest Jan-Feb at least back to 1958), and early spring, it has actually been a little colder than normal for every day of about the last 3 weeks. Currently, it is nearly 2C colder than normal. Anomalies as we head toward summer are almost always small. Regardless, every little bit helps as far as preserving Arctic ice/minimizing worldwide sea level rise is concerned, especially after such a ridiculously warm fall and winter:

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

Aside: Note that the coldest month's normal is, interestingly enough, in Feb. rather than in Jan.
Thanks for the data, Larry!
 
Hey, I just want to jump in and say that not everyone in Huntsville, AL is so intellectually dishonest with themselves about the realities of climate change...

It's too bad as a species we couldn't further refine and take advantage of nuclear energy.
 
Thanks for the data, Larry!

You're welcome.

To reiterate: Some good news regarding what had been a record warm (since at least 1958) 6 month period as a whole (Sept. of 2016 through Feb. of 2017):

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

If you click on the year by year graphs, you can clearly see two things:

1. The period 9/1/2016 through 2/28/2017 was easily the warmest of all of the years linked here (back to 1958) assuming this data is accurate. Look at how every single day was warmer than normal and was in many cases much warmer than normal.

(I do have a concern about the inconsistency of the anomalies when going from 12/31 of each year to 1/1 of the subsequent year. A dozen or so years had a rise or fall of 7C+, which bothers me because no other consecutive days throughout the year ever had nearly that much of a change, but I'll assume that isn't enough to call the entire dataset into question).

2. Interestingly enough, however, note that every day of the last month or so has actually been COLDER than normal (as much as 2C colder than normal).

(Keep in mind that anomalies in May through August are almost always much smaller than that for fall through early spring. So, 2C anomalies are actually rather significant in May. 1958-present record cold in May is only ~-4C.)

That's a very impressive cold recovery for Arctic temperatures with regard to normals though it doesn't mean the Arctic has actually been colder for the last 30 days averaged out (~261 K) vs the prior period. Instead, what has happened is that the Arctic has warmed much more slowly than normal. Jan-Feb of 2017 averaged a record warm (back to 1958) near 251-252 K. But the last 30 days have averaged near 261 K, which means a warming of only about 10 K. The average rise 1958-2002 has been nearly double that.

One last statistical item to note, which is related to some of what I said above: notice how regardless of how warm the Arctic has gotten anomalywise in winter, it has always gotten very close to normal by summer. It doesn't seem to matter much how mild the prior winter. Record warm anomalies back to 1958
on just about every summer day are only ~+1C! Anyone can see this by just clicking on every year from 1958-2016. I think that is really neat!

This chart updates daily and is one worth following, especially due to the very important upcoming summer. If it can somehow stay mainly colder than normal for much of the upcoming crucial next 6 weeks or so, that could very well be enough to prevent the peak of the Arctic ice melt season from being as bad as it was looking to be. Fingers are crossed, especially since coastal residents would be in much better shape if Arctic ice, in general, doesn't dwindle as fast since that would mean slower sea level rises overall.
 
Last edited:
Further to the above, the Arctic has remained colder than normal every day since that post (one week ago). Virtually the entire month of May to date has been that way. All of this is crucial to the primetime melt season, which is in its early stages.

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
 
Further to the above, the Arctic has remained colder than normal every day since that post (one week ago). Virtually the entire month of May to date has been that way. All of this is crucial to the primetime melt season, which is in its early stages.

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

I definitely would be cautious in utilizing the DMI Arctic temperatures, ERA-40 that's used for the climatological period is noted to have spurious trends in the arctic esp below the mid troposphere, henceforth it's climatological base period is also likely in error... JRA-55 daily temperatures are significantly warmer and are actually running about 1C above average poleward of 80N.

jra55_80N_t2m_2017.png

See this short paper by Screen and Simmonds (2010) "Erroneous Arctic Temperature Trends in the ERA-40 Reanalysis: A Closer Look"
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2010JCLI4054.1
 
Thanks very much for the recommendation of caution, Eric, when using ERA-40 for the daily climo normals. I will do so. I do see a similar day to day pattern of changes in anomalies. Regardless, I clearly see discrepancies in the anomalies when comparing the two datasets for a particular day. For example, consider the period 9/1/16-4/30/17:

whereas the ERA-40 base shows not even a single day colder than normal, the JRA-55 data shows there were about 28 days colder than normal. This actually suggests a couple of degree C WARM rather than cold bias for the ERA-40 based daily anomalies vs the anomalies shown in JRA-55 mainly in DJF. The other months look pretty close. May looks pretty close up until just the last 3 or so days as both were mainly 1 to 3 C colder than normal for May up til then. So, even your link's data suggests May has been chilly in the Arctic most of the month. However, there clearly is a difference now. So, I agree that caution is needed.

Aside: I had already noted earlier in this thread that I do have a concern about the 10 or so years having a disconnect of 7C+ between 12/31 of one year and 1/1 of the subsequent year as regards actuals. That still doesn't make sense.
 
Last edited:
I definitely would be cautious in utilizing the DMI Arctic temperatures, ERA-40 that's used for the climatological period is noted to have spurious trends in the arctic esp below the mid troposphere, henceforth it's climatological base period is also likely in error... JRA-55 daily temperatures are significantly warmer and are actually running about 1C above average poleward of 80N.

View attachment 565

See this short paper by Screen and Simmonds (2010) "Erroneous Arctic Temperature Trends in the ERA-40 Reanalysis: A Closer Look"
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2010JCLI4054.1

I just did a rough estimate of the differences in the average anomalies for the ERA-40 dataset for two periods to compare to what Ryan's graph shows for JRA-55 and came up with this:

- For 10/1/16 to present: whereas the average anomaly for JRA-55 is only +3.38 C, the average anomaly for ERA-40 is ~+6 C.

- For 2017 YTD: whereas the average anomaly for JRA-55 is only +1.69 C, the average anomaly for ERA-40 is ~+4 C.

- So, for both periods, the average anomaly for the JRA-55 is over 2C cooler. That's intuitive because I'm assuming a good portion of this is due to JRA-55/Ryan using 1981-2010 as the base vs ERA-40 using the quite a bit cooler 1958-2002 as its base.
 
I just did a rough estimate of the differences in the average anomalies for the ERA-40 dataset for two periods to compare to what Ryan's graph shows for JRA-55 and came up with this:

- For 10/1/16 to present: whereas the average anomaly for JRA-55 is only +3.38 C, the average anomaly for ERA-40 is ~+6 C.

- For 2017 YTD: whereas the average anomaly for JRA-55 is only +1.69 C, the average anomaly for ERA-40 is ~+4 C.

- So, for both periods, the average anomaly for the JRA-55 is over 2C cooler. That's intuitive because I'm assuming a good portion of this is due to JRA-55/Ryan using 1981-2010 as the base vs ERA-40 using the quite a bit cooler 1958-2002 as its base.

Yea that's right, on the other hand, the biases noted by Screen and Simmonds (2010) were regarding ERA-40's profound warm bias esp later in the 1990s when alterations were made regarding the input of satellite radiance measurements... In addition, JRA-55 is actually running warmer than the ECMWF (operational) vs the ERA-40 1958-2002 climatological base period atm
 
Aside: I had already noted earlier in this thread that I do have a concern about the 10 or so years having a disconnect of 7C+ between 12/31 of one year and 1/1 of the subsequent year as regards actuals. That still doesn't make sense.

I had written to those that run the website that has this daily Arctic temperature graph and got this answer this morning (they left off days 361-365 through 2008...so the last day of the year showing on the graph through 2008 was 12/26 (or 12/25 in leap years) meaning a jump from 12/26 of one year to 1/1 of the subsequent year):

"Hi Larry

Thanks for your question - well spotted! :)

The thing is that plots before 2009 only show data from day 1 to day 360 (by a rather dumb mistake), thus leaving the last 5 days of the year out of the plot!! From 2009 this has been corrected.

I simply haven't found the time to re-plot the time series...

Cheers"

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
 
Last edited:
After a colder than average Arctic May helped slow Arctic ice-melt down in May to less than the faster ice-melt rates of recent Mays, June has warmed to near normal, thus leading to a steeper ice melt rate over the last week or so:

Arctic daily temperatures:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

This has gotten 2017 back to 2nd lowest Arctic ice extent on record for the date behind only 2016. Because of the record warm Arctic fall/winter, we're skating on thin ice so to speak. So, it will be crucial to get back to a colder than normal Arctic this summer to avoid what could easily end up as the lowest ice extent minimum on record come September. Current lowest is 2012.

Arctic ice extent:

http://web.nersc.no/WebData/arctic-roos.org/observation/ssmi_ice_ext.png
 
After a colder than average Arctic May helped slow Arctic ice-melt down in May to less than the faster ice-melt rates of recent Mays, June has warmed to near normal, thus leading to a steeper ice melt rate over the last week or so:

Arctic daily temperatures:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

This has gotten 2017 back to 2nd lowest Arctic ice extent on record for the date behind only 2016. Because of the record warm Arctic fall/winter, we're skating on thin ice so to speak. So, it will be crucial to get back to a colder than normal Arctic this summer to avoid what could easily end up as the lowest ice extent minimum on record come September. Current lowest is 2012.

Arctic ice extent:

http://web.nersc.no/WebData/arctic-roos.org/observation/ssmi_ice_ext.png
Like the post, not the "news" ... ;) and :(
 
Here is an interesting write up from way back in 2004, which claimed that 1940-2000 was the most active 60 years for the sun (more sunspots, flux, etc) of the past 8000 years based on the levels of C-14 found in the tree rings of ancient tree trunks:

https://www.mpg.de/research/sun-activity-high

The significance of this supposed most active solar period in 8000 years is that it brings up the POSSIBILITY that a significant portion of global warming since the mid 20th century was actually a result of the very active sun since 1940. With the sun's overall activity now plunging and with a forecast of the weakest sunspot cycle in at least 200 years quite possibly followed by several more very weak cycles, there is a chance for global temperatures to reverse downward to a significant degree over the next few decades once any possible lag in global warming resulting from this very active 1940-2000 solar period has finally been fully incorporated.

I have for several years known about that period being the most active for the sun over the last 400++ years based on the well known sunspot records. Then I learned just this past February that it was quite possibly the most active in 2000 years as per this post I made in this thread:

http://southernwx.com/community/threads/global-warming-facts-and-fiction.85/page-3#post-20435

Today, I discovered it may very well have been the most active 50 years of the last 8000.
 
The direct forcing from solar irradiance is on the order of a few magnitudes less than most other parameters in the climate system and only varies about 0.1% over the course of a solar cycle, not to mention variations in solar activity wrt large-scale climate phenomena are still very elusive at best...
 
^ The variation of the DIRECT forcing from solar irradiance within a solar cycle (11 years on average) has been determined to be small, thus leading to global temperature variations of less than 0.1C. So, there's no debate there. However, there has been a lot written since 1997 about the POSSIBILITY that indirect effects of solar output variations due to things like the variation in the level of cosmic rays (CR) reaching our planet are much greater. There's been a lot of debate about the relative significance of this factor. The idea for those who don't know it is that decreased solar radiation allows for more CR to reach Earth. Supposedly, the average variation of CR reaching Earth within a cycle is near 15%. This supposedly leads to increased nuclei that lead to increased low cloud-cover, which then cools the globe. The big debate is the level of cooling this could cause as well as whether or not multiple weak solar cycles during a grand minimum would enhance this cooling due to a cumulative effect. Here is a link that explains the solar output-CR connection and the POSSIBILITY of it being a significant factor on global temperatures:

http://planet.botany.uwc.ac.za/NISL...e/Verification/N Shaviv/Responses/Carslaw.htm
 
^ The variation of the DIRECT forcing from solar irradiance within a solar cycle (11 years on average) has been determined to be small, thus leading to global temperature variations of less than 0.1C. So, there's no debate there. However, there has been a lot written since 1997 about the POSSIBILITY that indirect effects of solar output variations due to things like the variation in the level of cosmic rays (CR) reaching our planet are much greater. There's been a lot of debate about the relative significance of this factor. The idea for those who don't know it is that decreased solar radiation allows for more CR to reach Earth. Supposedly, the average variation of CR reaching Earth within a cycle is near 15%. This supposedly leads to increased nuclei that lead to increased low cloud-cover, which then cools the globe. The big debate is the level of cooling this could cause as well as whether or not multiple weak solar cycles during a grand minimum would enhance this cooling due to a cumulative effect. Here is a link that explains the solar output-CR connection and the POSSIBILITY of it being a significant factor on global temperatures:

http://planet.botany.uwc.ac.za/NISL/Gwen's Files/GeoCourse/Climate Change/Verification/N Shaviv/Responses/Carslaw.htm

Yes I'm more than aware of this, they're an innumerable amount of indirect agents that have some impact on the climate that ultimately are derived from the sun and I've mentioned a few of those on this very forum. However, there's very little, if any confidence in any of these agents and what impact, if significant at all they have and to make some of the assertions you've made above wrt decreasing global temperatures in the coming decades due to lower solar activity, which again is far too elusive atm to have much faith in whatsoever... GCRs modulate cloud condensation nuclei (aerosols in particular) which must generally grow by a factor of about 10^6 to begin scattering incoming solar radiation, and it's been well established that GCRs can modulate CCN, however, CCN's impact on the climate system is elusive, even more so than solar irradiance because many of the processes are of second order and involve microphysical forcing-feedback-response interactions with clouds, which have uncertainty ranges that are nearly equivalent to the forcing of ALL other anthropogenic forcing agents, combined...
 
^ Eric, you mentioned when referring to me "assertions you've made above wrt decreasing global temperatures in the coming decades due to lower solar activity".

I think that using the word "assertions" is not accurate. I'd replace what you said with "speculation about the possibility of decreasing global temperatures in the coming decades due to lower solar activity". Note that I used the words "chance" and "possibility" when referring to any cooldown over the next few decades from reduced solar activity. I'm not asserting but I am speculating about the possibility.
 
^ Eric, you mentioned when referring to me "assertions you've made above wrt decreasing global temperatures in the coming decades due to lower solar activity".

I think that using the word "assertions" is not accurate. I'd replace what you said with "speculation about the possibility of decreasing global temperatures in the coming decades due to lower solar activity". Note that I used the words "chance" and "possibility" when referring to any cooldown over the next few decades from reduced solar activity. I'm not asserting but I am speculating about the possibility.

Even still, it's probably not worth speculating about that possibility given the exceptionally large uncertainty bars and host of other factors that are liable to continue inducing more than enough forcing to completely mask the impacts of decreasing solar activity and result in continued warming...
 
Even still, it's probably not worth speculating about that possibility given the exceptionally large uncertainty bars and host of other factors that are liable to continue inducing more than enough forcing to completely mask the impacts of decreasing solar activity and result in continued warming...

You said "liable to continue inducing more than enough forcing to completely mask the impacts the impacts of decreasing solar radiation and result in continued warming". Of course, the word "liable" suggests merely a likelihood rather than a certainty even in your own mind. So, why isn't it worth speculating about the POSSIBLE significant cooling impact of reduced solar output? Isn't speculation about possibilities when considering overall inherent uncertainty an important part of the scientific discovery process?
 
The Arctic extent has been taking its seasonable sharp dive the last few weeks (see 2017 red line in the linked graph):

http://web.nersc.no/WebData/arctic-roos.org/observation/ssmi_ice_ext.png

With the extreme warmth of this past fall/winter in the Arctic meaning the ice that is not in good shape, with current extent only barely above the 2012 extent for this date per this graph, and with current Arctic temperatures now rising back to near normal, there is more than a trivial chance that this year's minimum ice extent will go below the 2012 low point. The best hope imo would be a return to a chilly pattern up there later this summer like was the case in most of May.
 
You said "liable to continue inducing more than enough forcing to completely mask the impacts the impacts of decreasing solar radiation and result in continued warming". Of course, the word "liable" suggests merely a likelihood rather than a certainty even in your own mind. So, why isn't it worth speculating about the POSSIBLE significant cooling impact of reduced solar output? Isn't speculation about possibilities when considering overall inherent uncertainty an important part of the scientific discovery process?

Yes it's possible, anyone would agree that the odds aren't zero, just that is your proposition actually legitimate and backed by a large, extensive body of literature? The answer is definitely no and what you've said above is just mere unquantifiable conjecture that's unlikely to verify given the relatively smaller forcing variance attributable to solar activity on multideacadal-centennial temporal scales in comparison to the cumulative impact of anthropogenic GHGs, aerosols, and feedbacks onto the ocean and atmosphere...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top