Local Climate Change

Intended for constructive conversations. Exhibits of polarizing tribalism will be deleted.
jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15859
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: Local Climate Change

Post by jacob »

IlliniDave wrote:
Tue Jul 04, 2017 9:42 am
The good news perhaps is that a solar minimum is expected soon, maybe along with a mitigating effect on temperature it wall also have a mitigating effect on some of the stronger weather events.
No. It is not expected soon. The chance of hitting a new Maunder minimum over the next 40 years is only 20%.
See https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8535

Were it to happen, the mitigating effect is small---keeping in mind that it will be mitigating a baseline distribution of extreme weather that's worse than today resulting in a "slightly less worse" than "worse than today" outcome.

Under RCP8.5 (business as usual), the likely range in year 2100 is 2.6--4.8C (global average) above the global average for 1986-2005. If a new Maunder Minimum like solar minimum was reached, the effect would be to shift that range down -0.1 to -0.3 on average which is only a small amount relative to the CO2 driven increase. Another way of putting it is that given the 1/5 chance that the sun is cooperating that assistance would only delay the climate change effects by two years. Putting it in terms of the long Climate101 explanation I wrote in a previous post, the forcing from a solar minimum is now less than the forcing from the added CO2 (40%+ more than in 1750), so solar minimums no longer have much impact on Earth's climate.

Also see, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 42710/full

IlliniDave
Posts: 3837
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:46 pm

Re: Local Climate Change

Post by IlliniDave »

I'm just going off this. May not be a grand solar minimum they are talking about.

https://weather.com/science/space/video ... e-sunspots

NOAA seems to think we're about there too.

http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar ... rogression

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15859
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: Local Climate Change

Post by jacob »

@iDave - That's just a normal 11-year cycle minimum. Also note that we're already near the minimum of that .. so over the next 5-6 years, the heat will go up by a small fraction; but this is the opposite of relief. Then after that .. it will go down again and so on. But solar cycle effects are now small relative to the GHG forcing factors, so you can pretty much ignore sun-cycle based effects henceforth (for the next 1000 years or so).

IlliniDave
Posts: 3837
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:46 pm

Re: Local Climate Change

Post by IlliniDave »

jacob, yes, an ordinary solar minimum. That's why I didn't say "grand solar minimum" or "Maunder minimum". As to whether the minimum causes more heat or less, twc.com scientists seem to think less incident energy during the minima, more during the maxima. Don't tell me they are climate deniers too! :lol: They seem to be the most stalwart GW-ists among all the outlets I visit. Or maybe I just misunderstood, and atmospheric cooling thy mention during a minimum causes the opposite phenomenon in the troposphere. Either way, I still hope the poor folks on the east coast are spared another hurricane.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15859
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: Local Climate Change

Post by jacob »

@iDave - You're essentially talking about pennies when what matters are the pounds---like someone discussing how the seasonal variance in their heating bill influences the accumulation trend of their overall networth (plus in this metaphor, you're half a year off in terms of which month you think it currently is :? ). The east coast is not going to get any relief from this effect.

Lets not discuss this further here. Solar input is basic 101 stuff and bringing in irrelevant factors is distracting at best and misleading at worst.
People should not get their hopes up if it isn't warranted because they might decide to not prepare.

Sorry, but I'm gonna put my foot down on uninformed speculation about basic climate science. We're not going to do this again for a 4th time!

Please stick to local observations, etc.

IlliniDave
Posts: 3837
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:46 pm

Re: Local Climate Change

Post by IlliniDave »

jacob, you completely misread my posts starting with the first one. Diction is important. Last thing I'll say is I chose the word "mitigate" carefully. You are incorrectly assigning an agenda to me so you are right we should not discuss it here or anywhere else probably. My apologies, I did not realize the people at twc.com disagreed w/you, else I would not have made mention of that video they put up recently.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15859
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: Local Climate Change

Post by jacob »

I do not assign an agenda to you. However, given that the graph and link you posted leads to the opposite conclusion than the point you were trying to make(*) as well as having a negligible effect on the point you were making in your first post, I don't think you understand the physical mechanism you're talking about even at a basic level. You definitely misunderstood a bunch of things.

The TWC scientists' comments about the solar cycle is like saying that "things fall down". It's not some novel discovery. You're seemingly getting hooked up on who says what and whether you think some messengers are more agenda driven than others. But this is a simple case of you not understanding the solar/climate science equivalent of "things fall down". It's not about messengers. It's about understanding enough about the relevant science to have an informed opinion before making scientific comments.

The reason we should not discuss it here is that uninformed comments that don't demonstrate rudimentary understanding of the field will add more noise than signal because such nonsense will add negative information flow to other people who are also insufficiently informed to tell the difference between correct and incorrect or relevant and irrelevant statements. Letting them stand for discussion has already been tried in three other threads with more than 1000+ posts and they all got taken over eventually by sciency bunk comments.

Locked