Sun

[Ramhusker]

http://www.vencoreweather.com/blog/...he-weakest-solar-cycle-in-more-than-a-century

 

[CGI_Ram]

Depending on if you believe the data... This (significant solar minimum) could lead to the start of a global cooling period.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Depending on if you believe the data... This (significant solar minimum) could lead to the start of a global cooling period.

Ehhhhhhhhhh, maybe. The truth is we really don't know if the minimum (low solar activity) will do just that, there is some signs that it could but nothing concrete.

In the past 560 years we've seen 4 solar minimum periods (like the one expected to happen in the next 15-20 years).. I mean more than just the minimum and maximum parts of the 11 year solar cycle (which should end in the next few years)..

Anyway there was the Sporer minimum (1450-1550), Maunder minimum (1645-1715), Dalton Minimum (1790-1820), and Glassberg minimum (1880-1914)... In the first half of the Sporer minimum temperatures were cooler than average, but the second half warmer than average, hardly enough to go off of... (they didn't steadily grow colder and then warmer).. Maunder minimum saw the coldest winter on average in London one year, but two years later the 3rd warmest winter on average.. additionally summers stayed average. There was a little ice age at the time, but it began 50 years before the minimum, and it appears there's not much correlation. The Dalton also saw cooler temperatures, but most believe it had more to do with increased volcanism, rather than the sunspots due to evidence stating it was the case. Finally the Glassberg minimum saw global temperatures rise during that time.

A lot of people hear about the little ice age and the Maunder Minimum and assume that means we're going to have another little ice age, but that doesn't appear to be the case. We don't really know so it could, but the data doesn't suggest that it will. The data suggests that a minimum will come soon, what that does, if anything, to global temperatures is mostly a guess. At any rate it's unlikely we would really see much, if any, effect from it, especially as temperatures continue to rise.. If anything they may just raise slower.

 

[CGI_Ram]

The truth is we really don't know if the minimum (low solar activity) will do just that, there is some signs that it could but nothing concrete.

True. We don't know for sure how low solar activity will impact temps.

A lot of people hear about the little ice age and the Maunder Minimum and assume that means we're going to have another little ice age

I've heard that too. I don't know what a little ice age means in this day and age. But... I believe it's possible we see a period of cooler years as it relates to global temperatures, but not much that a person would notice.

 

[bluecoconuts]

True. We don't know for sure how low solar activity will impact temps.



I've heard that too. I don't know what a little ice age means in this day and age. But... I believe it's possible we see a period of cooler years as it relates to global temperatures, but not much that a person would notice.

We could see some cooler temperatures, it's one of those things that solar/stellar physicists are all pretty excited about, we have more of an understanding and far better tools to study what the effects could do now.

There was some articles posted about a potential little ice age and a new solar minimum a few months ago and immediately everyone started talking about ice ages and climate change and all that which isn't really related. The fact is we don't really know what will happen or the extent of what it will be, it's just as likely that nothing happens as something happens. It would be nice to get some cooler weather but it's not something that I, or many of my colleagues are counting on. People hear "little ice age" and automatically begin thinking about Mammoths and Sabre Tooth Cats, but we're talking about a cooling of about .6 degrees Celsius... During the Ice Age temperatures were roughly -11.11 degrees C and currently are about 16.11 degrees C... So we're talking about a potential drop to 15.5 degrees... Again, that's assuming we actually see something like that.

 

[fearsomefour]

One thing for sure....not knowing will not deter "scientists" from releasing wildly inaccurate computer projections and trying to sell books.

 

[LesBaker]

One thing for sure....not knowing will not deter "scientists" from releasing wildly inaccurate computer projections and trying to sell books.

And politicians from using it as a fear tactic.

 

[Selassie I]

The Weatherman is never wrong here in Florida when giving forecasts. Everyday they claim that there is a 50% chance. Best job ever.

 

[bluecoconuts]

And politicians from using it as a fear tactic.

Politicians have no business discussing climate change and other sciences unless they are a scientist or they are quoting scientists. It's disappointing that so many people will decide to go against the science and the experts because politicians are paid to say to ignore them.

 

[fearsomefour]

Politicians have no business discussing climate change and other sciences unless they are a scientist or they are quoting scientists. It's disappointing that so many people will decide to go against the science and the experts because politicians are paid to say to ignore them.

It's all disappointing.
Misreporting of real science when it is done. Bad modeling based on nonsense. Folks pushing an agenda and not common sense. Can't wait for the taxes going to some international fund that will disappear.
Good times.

 

[bluecoconuts]

It's all disappointing.
Misreporting of real science when it is done. Bad modeling based on nonsense. Folks pushing an agenda and not common sense. Can't wait for the taxes going to some international fund that will disappear.
Good times.

The problem is people politicized something that they didn't need to. So people want data to say one thing and they will just assume anything that says otherwise is faulty or cooked or agenda driven. Mistakes happen in science and the truth is scientists want to get published (its how they make their living and get jobs) but if you are cooking the numbers and they get disproven causing you to redact your paper it makes you look worse, especially if it's a well known topic.

Part of my job is trying to make nice with rich potential donors in order to get additional funding for our lab. Being a state university, we get decent funding, but not nearly as much as others, so we have to go and beg to get the latest stuff to help with our research. I've given proposals to the government, rich people, senators, etc. When looking for updated equipment to assist with dark matter research two senators (prominent ones who ran for president) on the science committee started asking how the lab would study climate change. I told them it wouldn't, that's not our department. The reply I got was "yeah, but the sun is what's making things hot, not us, right? How long does that take?" When I told them that's not really the point, but at the rate we're going, it'll probably take a few hundred million years before we're at a serious risk of greenhouse gas runaway similar to what happened with Venus, so only extremophiles living near the poles would have a good chance to survive, and the cap is probably about a billion years before Earth is uninhabitable.... the response? "You guys can't get your story straight, I thought the sun doesn't blow up for 10 billion years or something."

It was mind blowing, I had to give these guys a basic astronomy lecture about the lifetime of the sun, and how it heats up as it ages. When I said we were about halfway through its 10 billion year lifespan before becoming a shell burning star (not blow up) I was interrupted with "how do you know the Earth is that old? There's data that says it's much younger"

If looks could kill we would have had a smaller pool this election. On that note I'm gonna cut this off here, it's pissing me off just thinking about it.

 

[fearsomefour]

Confirmation bias is the biggest problem I see, just not in this but in society as a whole.
Politics, economics, climate change and everything in between....confirmation bias is a huge factor.
Someone being wealthy, powerful or successful does not preclude from that....in fact, it make them more susceptible to it.
The people with a deep understanding of this (as close to an understanding as we have) on either side are very limited in number, the rest are regurgitating sound bites they have heard.
As for me, I will revisit the articles quoting projections and studies from the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, 00's and the way up to today spouting doom and gloom and giving us 10 years to turn it all around.
Any projection talking about big damage in 200 years or beyond, frankly, I could not care less.
This attitude I am basing in the reality of the world we live in, human kind and how we address problems.
If the worst case scenarios are correct, it barely matters.

 

[Roman Snow]

Confirmation bias is the biggest problem I see, just not in this but in society as a whole.
Politics, economics, climate change and everything in between....confirmation bias is a huge factor.
Someone being wealthy, powerful or successful does not preclude from that....in fact, it make them more susceptible to it.
The people with a deep understanding of this (as close to an understanding as we have) on either side are very limited in number, the rest are regurgitating sound bites they have heard.
As for me, I will revisit the articles quoting projections and studies from the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, 00's and the way up to today spouting doom and gloom and giving us 10 years to turn it all around.
Any projection talking about big damage in 200 years or beyond, frankly, I could not care less.
This attitude I am basing in the reality of the world we live in, human kind and how we address problems.
If the worst case scenarios are correct, it barely matters.

Exactly @fearsomefour The number of people that buy into these "crisises" scare me.

:burp:If we just abandon our freedoms and surrender to our enemies, maybe we can change the temperatures by a half degree and keep the seas from rising!...and the Muslims will be our friends.



*I'll give a FREE 6 hour joy ride on Al Gore's Lear jet to the person that can wake people the f¥<€ up that they are being played.

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

Ehhhhhhhhhh, maybe. The truth is we really don't know if the minimum (low solar activity) will do just that, there is some signs that it could but nothing concrete.

In the past 560 years we've seen 4 solar minimum periods (like the one expected to happen in the next 15-20 years).. I mean more than just the minimum and maximum parts of the 11 year solar cycle (which should end in the next few years)..

Anyway there was the Sporer minimum (1450-1550), Maunder minimum (1645-1715), Dalton Minimum (1790-1820), and Glassberg minimum (1880-1914)... In the first half of the Sporer minimum temperatures were cooler than average, but the second half warmer than average, hardly enough to go off of... (they didn't steadily grow colder and then warmer).. Maunder minimum saw the coldest winter on average in London one year, but two years later the 3rd warmest winter on average.. additionally summers stayed average. There was a little ice age at the time, but it began 50 years before the minimum, and it appears there's not much correlation. The Dalton also saw cooler temperatures, but most believe it had more to do with increased volcanism, rather than the sunspots due to evidence stating it was the case. Finally the Glassberg minimum saw global temperatures rise during that time.

A lot of people hear about the little ice age and the Maunder Minimum and assume that means we're going to have another little ice age, but that doesn't appear to be the case. We don't really know so it could, but the data doesn't suggest that it will. The data suggests that a minimum will come soon, what that does, if anything, to global temperatures is mostly a guess. At any rate it's unlikely we would really see much, if any, effect from it, especially as temperatures continue to rise.. If anything they may just raise slower.

I thought it was clear that the little ice age corresponded with an eruption of a Super volcano. It resulted in the potato famine due to the volume of ash in the atmosphere.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I thought it was clear that the little ice age corresponded with an eruption of a Super volcano. It resulted in the potato famine due to the volume of ash in the atmosphere.

Supervolcanos play a role, so does increased volcanism... However I believe the potato famine was caused by a strain of disease that killed potato growth around the world. Ireland was hit hard because that's basically all we did back then, grow and export potatos. It was cheap and grew in bad soil.

The little ice age did see periods of increased volcanism though, including supervolcanos, which cooled the Earth and made it difficult to recover to normal for a while.

 

[RamzFanz]

Ehhhhhhhhhh, maybe. The truth is we really don't know if the minimum (low solar activity) will do just that, there is some signs that it could but nothing concrete.

In the past 560 years we've seen 4 solar minimum periods (like the one expected to happen in the next 15-20 years).. I mean more than just the minimum and maximum parts of the 11 year solar cycle (which should end in the next few years)..

Anyway there was the Sporer minimum (1450-1550), Maunder minimum (1645-1715), Dalton Minimum (1790-1820), and Glassberg minimum (1880-1914)... In the first half of the Sporer minimum temperatures were cooler than average, but the second half warmer than average, hardly enough to go off of... (they didn't steadily grow colder and then warmer).. Maunder minimum saw the coldest winter on average in London one year, but two years later the 3rd warmest winter on average.. additionally summers stayed average. There was a little ice age at the time, but it began 50 years before the minimum, and it appears there's not much correlation. The Dalton also saw cooler temperatures, but most believe it had more to do with increased volcanism, rather than the sunspots due to evidence stating it was the case. Finally the Glassberg minimum saw global temperatures rise during that time.

A lot of people hear about the little ice age and the Maunder Minimum and assume that means we're going to have another little ice age, but that doesn't appear to be the case. We don't really know so it could, but the data doesn't suggest that it will. The data suggests that a minimum will come soon, what that does, if anything, to global temperatures is mostly a guess. At any rate it's unlikely we would really see much, if any, effect from it, especially as temperatures continue to rise.. If anything they may just raise slower.

It's an interesting subject and one we should get a lot of good data from this time around. By itself, it's a single variable of unknown significance mostly, but in conjunction with all the other variables like ocean currents and trends, it might teach us a lot.

 

[bluecoconuts]

It's an interesting subject and one we should get a lot of good data from this time around. By itself, it's a single variable of unknown significance mostly, but in conjunction with all the other variables like ocean currents and trends, it might teach us a lot.

Definitely, now that we know to look, and have good data beforehand, it'll be a great source of study.

 

[RAMSinLA]

 

[PA Ram]

Personally, I'll stick with the majority of climate scientists and not the one or two guys on the Exxon payroll who disagree and call it even. And I sure as heck am not listening to anything Jim Inhofe has to say on the subject.

 

[RamFan503]

So you're saying I shouldn't plant any banana trees here in Oregon JUST yet - eh?