Oh, the sun!

the science of climate change

From The Nation today. I don’t endorse everything in their article, but the information about the sun recalls what was once widely accepted but is lately strangely disregarded: the sun powerfully controls the climate.

The sun will go into “hibernation” mode around 2030, and it has already started to get sleepy. At the Royal Astronomical Society’s annual meeting in July, Professor Valentina Zharkova of Northumbria University in the UK confirmed it – the sun will begin its Maunder Minimum (Grand Solar Minimum) in 15 years. Other scientists had suggested years ago that this change was imminent, but Zharkova’s model is said to have near-perfect accuracy.

– h/t Leonard G. Mills

9
Leave a Reply

avatar
8 Comment threads
1 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
5 Comment authors
Richard TreadgoldWayne JobLukesAreWrongTooBulamanRichard C (NZ) Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”At the Royal Astronomical Society’s annual meeting in July, Professor Valentina Zharkova of Northumbria University in the UK confirmed it – the sun will begin its Maunder Minimum (Grand Solar Minimum) in 15 years” This was news back in July. Plenty of others saying the same thing: “Other researchers and organisations are also predicting global cooling – the Russian Academy of Science, the Astronomical Institute of the Slovak Academy of Scientists, the Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism Russia, Victor Manuel Velesco Herrera at the National University of Mexico, the Bulgarian Institute of Astronomy, Dr Tim Patterson at Carleton University in Canada, Drs Lin Zhen at Nanjing University in China, just to name a few. For now nevertheless, the IPCC and other authoritative agencies are sticking to their CO2-dominant climate-forcing theory. The IPCC’s CO2 dominant climate forcing theory is being proved invalid by the IPCC’s own criteria (TOA energy balance), so there are actually alternative testable climate scenarios contrary to the IPCC’s blinkered view: A) Warming B) No change (in place right now, relative to CO2-forced model projections at least) C) Cooling The C) alternative probably would not be evident until soon after 2020. But… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Worth noting that changes in the sun’s output are in the UV-A/B, Vis, IR-A/B range of the EM spectrum. IR-A/B is the earth’s heating agent particularly in the tropics. Any change means a real change in heating effect once the irradiation reaches the surface. That change is then lagged via the ocean. Theoretical GHG warming pertains to the less energetic IR-C range, which is what the sun’s energy is degraded to by the earth’s transfer mediums. The extreme estimate of solar change for the 2030s is in the order of 6 W.m-2. Not necessarily what will happen of course but certainly not out of the question (needless to say, the IPCC think it is). So that would be about 3 W.m-2 per decade over the next 2 decades, predominantly in IR-A/B but the response lagged in the atmosphere via the ocean i.e. not instantaneous. Theoretical CO2 forcing change by comparison, which (in theory) acts at TOA (not surface), is currently 0.2 – 0.3 W.m-2 per decade in IR-C and theoretically the surface atmospheric response is near instantaneous (i.e. no oceanic lag). So the competition is between a real heating agent changing anywhere up… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

I’ve mostly subscribed to the idea that El Nino’s are solar-fueled after the action of wind and cloud but have had an interest in the possibilty of geological origins i.e. geologically induced deep ocean seafloor fluid flow events. The following (abbreviated) is by James Kamis. James Edward Kamis is a Geologist and AAPG member of 41 years and who has always been fascinated by the connection between Geology and Climate. Years of research / observation have convinced him that the Earth’s Heat Flow Engine, which drives the outer crustal plates, is also an important driver of the Earth’s climate. [He’s not the only geologist to be saying this, there are obscure papers by others] ‘How La Ninas Successfully Prove That El Ninos are Geological in Origin’ […] The theory posits that all El Ninos are generated by a massive and relatively long-lasting pulse of fluid from deep ocean seafloor geological features that are located in a limited area of the far western Pacific Ocean. This area is one of the most active geological regions on earth. It is comprised of several major fault / upper Earth crust plate boundaries, numerous deep ocean volcanoes,… Read more »

Bulaman
Guest
Bulaman

El Nino could be a bit weaker than predicted. SOI is very nearly neutral..

https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/seasonalclimateoutlook/southernoscillationindex/index.php

LukesAreWrongToo
Guest
LukesAreWrongToo

The calculations by Lukes and Warmists are WRONG because they do NOT explain the required energy flows. The direct solar radiation cannot and does not account for the observed surface temperatures on Earth, let alone Venus. Back radiation has nothing to do with such temperatures. It could only slow the rate of cooling by radiation, but the solar radiation is not what gets the surfaces of such planets up to the observed temperatures. How does the surface actually warm each morning? How does the required new thermal energy get into the surface? YOU GUYS HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING AT ALL IN REGARD TO THE THERMODYNAMICS OF PLANETARY TROPOSPHERES. You need to think in a wholly different paradigm – one which has been explained correctly by only one writer in all of world literature. When you understand the maximization of entropy it will blow your mind as to just HOW WRONG all Lukes and Warmists are. The biggest single problem is that they don’t understand thermodynamics and radiation, and they are not prepared to try to learn and understand such. They just scoff at the author of that breakthrough science (already endorsed by other physicists)… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘A TSI-Driven (solar) Climate Model’ February 8, 2016 by Jeff Patterson “The fidelity with which this model replicates the observed atmospheric CO2 concentration has significant implications for attributing the source of the rise in CO2 (and by inference the rise in global temperature) observed since 1880. There is no statistically significant signal of an anthropogenic contribution to the residual plotted Figure 3c. Thus the entirety of the observed post-industrial rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration can be directly attributed to the variation in TSI, the only forcing applied to the system whose output accounts for 99.5% ( r2=.995) of the observational record. How then, does this naturally occurring CO2 impact global temperature? To explore this we will develop a system model which when combined with the CO2 generating system of Figure 4 can replicate the decadal scale global temperature record with impressive accuracy. Researchers have long noted the relationship between TSI and global mean temperature.[5] We hypothesize that this too is due to the lagged accumulation of oceanic heat content, the delay being perhaps the transit time of the thermohaline circulation. A system model that implements this hypothesis is shown in Figure 5.” “The… Read more »

Wayne Job
Guest
Wayne Job

In the long term it will be found that the Earths surface is kept warm from the Earths internal heat. This heat after 4.5 billion years that keeps the middle of our world molten is what science calls dark energy, it cycles though the universe comes to us mainly from the sun. It mainly enters at the poles and exits 30 degrees north and south of the equator. Heat from the sun helps keep us warm, when the sun is rampant less heat leaves our world, when the sun is quite more heat leaves and a maunder minimum or L.I.A. When the sun and earth are in bad angles we get less internal heat and have a full on ice age. Pretty much regular as clock work.
Prove I am wrong I would be delighted. Wayne

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Hansen et al (2005) have an estimate for planetary oceanic thermal inertia (as do others in the literature). Here’s a synopsis for the record. The article, and Hansen et al, make a crazy miss-attribution but the point is the lag time between planetary energy input change and atmospheric temperature response: Mostly citing the above-linked Science study by Hansen et al Earth’s thermal climate inertia is often quoted as being ’40 years’ [“10 -100 years” – Trenberth]. The study [Hansen et al 2005 – see link in article] says something quite different though. It offers a confidence range between 25 and 50 years – with 37.5 years as most likely value. http://www.bitsofscience.org/real-global-temperature-trend-climate-system-thermal-inertia-7086/ >”a confidence range between 25 and 50 years – with 37.5 years as most likely value” I think this is a very realistic estimate, it is longer than some others e.g. Abdussamatov’s 20 yr ocean-only and 14+/-6 land+ocean, and certainly a lot longer than “time constant” experts from other fields (think Electrical Engineers and David Evans N-D Solar Model series – many heated arguments over the oceanic time constant). For example, solar change occurred circa 2005 and is continuing. Using Hansen et… Read more »

Post Navigation