Science
Related: About this forumSolar activity predicted to fall 60% in 2030s, to 'mini ice age' levels:
new model of the Sun's solar cycle is producing unprecedentedly accurate predictions of irregularities within the Sun's 11-year heartbeat. The model draws on dynamo effects in two layers of the Sun, one close to the surface and one deep within its convection zone. Predictions from the model suggest that solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s to conditions last seen during the 'mini ice age' that began in 1645.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150709092955.htm
jonno99
(2,620 posts)(ala Trading Places...)
HFRN
(1,469 posts)to do my share to warm the globe to fight this
eppur_se_muova
(36,269 posts)we'll make up for lost time in a hurry.
pscot
(21,024 posts)the deniers are going to be over the moon with this. They'll see it as a complete vindication and an encouragement to 'stay the course'.
caraher
(6,278 posts)"Solar activity" is not the same as irradiance; with normal sunspot cycles, the variation in the energy the sun puts out is much less than a percent. That "60% fall" is in number of sunspots, rather than the energy we receive from the Sun.
The "Little Ice Age" was not a global phenomenon. It's not obvious to me how this would do much with respect to global warming.
pscot
(21,024 posts)the ill-considered editorializing.
pscot
(21,024 posts)the little ice age was indeed global and that similar events over the last 3000 years coincide with variations in sunspot activity. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141119204521.htm#
I think the IPCC hesitated to call it a worldwide climate event in part because of a paucity of good southern hemisphere data. Perhaps that's a gap that will close.
But in any event, the magnitude of any cooling effect still seems much less than the AGW effect. The Little Ice Age seems to have been a period where at most we were 0.6 Celcius below "baseline" (thanks in part to an uptick in volcanic activity). According to Georg Feulner writing at RealClimate, a new "Maunder minimum" might result in 0.3 C of temporary cooling:
It remains to be seen whether this prognosis turns out to be true (there have been some doubts expressed), but since grand minima of solar activity did occur in the past, it is certainly interesting to explore what effects such a minimum might have on 21st century climate if it did occur. This is precisely the question Stefan Rahmstorf and I investigated in a study published last year... In our study we find that a new Maunder Minimum would lead to a cooling of 0.3°C in the year 2100 at most relative to an expected anthropogenic warming of around 4°C. (The amount of warming in the 21st century depends on assumptions about future emissions, of course).
According to these results, a 21st-century Maunder Minimum would only slightly diminish future warming. Moreover, it would be only a temporary effect since all known grand solar minima have only lasted for a few decades. Critics of this result might argue that the solar forcing in these experiments is only based on the estimated change in total irradiance, which might be an underestimate, or that does not include potential indirect amplifying effects (via an ozone response to UV changes, or galactic cosmic rays affecting clouds). However, our model reproduces the historic Maunder minimum with these estimates of solar irradiance. Furthermore, even if one multiplied the solar effects by a huge factor of 5 (which is unrealistic), no absolute cooling would take place (the temperatures would be temporarily cooler than the base scenario, but the trends would still be warming).
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100120161243.htm
South African:
http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LEVryVL6BV3isA5AAnnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByNXM5bzY5BGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMzBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--/RV=2/RE=1436590102/RO=10/RU=http%3a%2f%2fruby.fgcu.edu%2fcourses%2ftwimberley%2fEnviroPhilo%2fTyson.pdf/RK=0/RS=khB2nlDZYvXWK64Qqfj05Nu_aDA-
China:
http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LEVvv8L6BVqU8A5gknnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTBybGY3bmpvBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--/RV=2/RE=1436590204/RO=10/RU=http%3a%2f%2fwww.ess.uci.edu%2f~johnsonlab%2ffiles%2fDownload%2fYang%2520et%2520al.%2c%25202002.pdf/RK=0/RS=ky0wIrORw5k2U42v5lfXgl8AVdM-
Antarctica:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X11002925
caraher
(6,278 posts)Moreover, its not clear the results from the studies indicate a weak cycle next time around. Its possible, but not a sure thing. And a weak cycle, as Dr. Biesecker points out, doesnt necessarily mean anything to our climate, volcanoes or not.
Also, keep in mind the Little Ice Age was not a global phenomenon, but a regional one. Even if a weak cycle occurs and it does affect us, the effects would be relatively contained. It would suck for those who got hit by it, but the Earth itself would weather through it. Haha.
And lets not forget the elephant in the room: the amount of cooling wed see from this even if it all came together would still be less than the global warming weve been experiencing since the 20th century. It might slow things down for a while, but the climate change were seeing now and its real, folks is more than enough to take on a little temporary cooling, especially local cooling.