davefales Loc: Virginia

An article in the UK Express caught my attention a couple days ago:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1159227/weather-forecast-long-range-solar-minimum-maximum-ice-age-space-weather-news

I did not trust their discussion so found the actual abstract they were reporting:

***********************
1. Sci Rep. 2019 Jun 24;9(1):9197. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-45584-3.

Oscillations of the baseline of solar magnetic field and solar irradiance on a
millennial timescale.

Zharkova VV(1), Shepherd SJ(2), Zharkov SI(3), Popova E(4)(5).

Author information:
(1)Northumbria University, Department of Mathematics, Physics and Electrical
Engineering, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 1XE, UK.
valentina.zharkova@northumbria.ac.uk.
(2)University of Bradford, School of Engineering, Bradford, BD7 1DP, UK.
(3)University of Hull, Department of Physics and Mathematics, Kingston upon Hull,
HU6 7RX, UK.
(4)Nasir al-Din al-Tusi Shamakhi Astrophysical Observatory Azerbaijan, AZ 1000,
Pirqulu, Azerbaijan.
(5)National Research University, Higher School of Economics, 101000, Moscow,
Russia.

Recently discovered long-term oscillations of the solar background magnetic field
associated with double dynamo waves generated in inner and outer layers of the
Sun indicate that the solar activity is heading in the next three decades
(2019-2055) to a Modern grand minimum similar to Maunder one. On the other hand,
a reconstruction of solar total irradiance suggests that since the Maunder
minimum there is an increase in the cycle-averaged total solar irradiance (TSI)
by a value of about 1-1.5 Wm-2 closely correlated with an increase of the
baseline (average) terrestrial temperature. In order to understand these two
opposite trends, we calculated the double dynamo summary curve of magnetic field
variations backward one hundred thousand years allowing us to confirm strong
oscillations of solar activity in regular (11 year) and recently reported grand
(350-400 year) solar cycles caused by actions of the double solar dynamo. In
addition, oscillations of the baseline (zero-line) of magnetic field with a
period of 1950 ± 95 years (a super-grand cycle) are discovered by applying a
running averaging filter to suppress large-scale oscillations of 11 year cycles.
Latest minimum of the baseline oscillations is found to coincide with the grand
solar minimum (the Maunder minimum) occurred before the current super-grand cycle
start. Since then the baseline magnitude became slowly increasing towards its
maximum at 2600 to be followed by its decrease and minimum at ~3700. These
oscillations of the baseline solar magnetic field are found associated with a
long-term solar inertial motion about the barycenter of the solar system and
closely linked to an increase of solar irradiance and terrestrial temperature in
the past two centuries. This trend is anticipated to continue in the next six
centuries that can lead to a further natural increase of the terrestrial
temperature by more than 2.5 °C by 2600.

DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-45584-3
PMCID: PMC6591297
PMID: 31235834
*****************************
I have bolded two thoughts.

Observations:
1. If we are entering a 30-40 year period similar to the Little Ice Age (which occurred in pulses from the 13th to 19th centuries), why would we want to spend incredible amounts of limited resources on driving the temperature down...which is hardly likely anyway if the Chinese and the Indians do not want to cooperate?

2. How good are scientists who predict a 2.5 degree Celsius overall temperature increase in the next six centuries ....when the latest IPCC report discusses higher increases in the next 100 years?

Just remember: "97% of the world's climate scientists have agreed that there is man-made warming."

I wonder how long this can stay out of The Attic.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

So the weather is cyclic (with man-made burps). We just haven't recorded information long enough.

davefales Loc: Virginia

Great observation. It is indisputable there are frequent new discoveries that obviate old theories (the essence of the scientific method) ...particularly regarding climate theory. We discover patterns that were hidden to us, offering new explanations.

Yet we have politicians who want to ban the internal combustion engine.

marklevisay Loc: Central Virginia

Good work looking into the details. Someone writing something in a magazine article or scientific journal doesn't make it true. We ignore the multiple episodes of continental glaciation over the past 2 million years at our peril.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

IF and when we get to the Jetson's cars, there will probably also be a problem with them.

davefales Loc: Virginia

A related report:

https://pagesix.com/2019/07/30/a-listers-flock-to-google-summit-in-private-jets-mega-yachts-to-talk-c*****e-c****e/

The Google Climate Camp in Sicily attended by President Barack Obama, Prince Harry, Leonardo DiCaprio and Katy Perry.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

If one wants to get to the bottom of this G****l W*****g fracas, all one has to do is connect the fall of The Soviet Union and Al Gore. The connection can be facilitated by reading "MInd Wars" by Ian McFadyen.
--Bob

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

Does the c*****e c****e - Yes, constantly it gets warmer, it gets cooler. Over long cycles that we only have a few centuries of even semi-reliable data. We do have studies of tree rings, sediment deposits etc. going back much further - in fact long before humans were able to effect anything but the temperature in their tent or cave with a camp fire. Even long before "humans" existed at all.

Go out and look up in the daylight, careful of your eyes, there is the main culprit. Most people call it the Sun/Sol and it has energy output cycles - lots of energy the Earth gets warmer, less energy the Earth gets cooler.

Do humans have a contribution, yes, very tiny compared to the Sun. But we do make the environment dirty. That we can take care of with work and care. Just read about how bad many rivers were before people and government started to clean up our act and environment. Smog too, the worst smog years in LA the last several decades are nothing compared to mid-20th century, or many cities in other countries right now where they don't have the clean air regulations and enforcement.


Here is an essay I wrote about this years ago from multiple sources - no I don't have most of the stuff anymore, just the essay. I have posted this in the past including here on UHH.


I have a BA with a double major in History and Geography and later added a major in Education and all but one class for a major in Cinematography-Animation. Then I took all but one class to qualify for a separate BS in Geography as part of my continuing education for my teaching credential. Climatology is part of that field and a heavy reading interest of mine for a couple of years in the past, to include a lot of Paleo-climatology.

The “consensus” claim that "97/98% of all scientists believe in man made g****l w*****g” started from a 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of a two question online survey sent by two researchers at the University of Illinois. They were a master’s candidate and said candidate’s faculty adviser. Since then many have jumped on the bandwagon and repeated it.

That survey asked only two questions:
1. “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” multiple choice – risen, fallen, remained relatively constant
Few would answer anything but “risen” because the world has been warming since the “Little Ice Age”* ended between the late 18th and the mid/late 19th century (depends on whose data/conclusion you pick). This is mostly before the main part of the Industrial Revolution.
*Actually since the end of the last major ice age/glacial period 12,000 years ago but it has had its ups and downs.
2. “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing** mean global temperatures?” Yes or No (not as bad as the Yes or No “Have you stopped beating your wife?” but close)
** What constitutes “significant”? It is an ambiguous and relative term. Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? Does it include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation or only industrial etc?

A They sent out 10,257 surveys by e-mail.
B. They got back 3,146 (30.6%)
C. 77 of those were by scientists who got 50% or more of their papers published in peer reviewed Climate Science journals in the previous year. This qualified them as “climate scientists” for the study. (2.4% of all that replied .75% of all surveys sent out) What about people who write/publish in multiple fields so that less than 50% of their papers meet this criteria but they are considered “climate scientists” by their peers?
D. 75 of them answered Yes to question #2 = 97.4% 75 repeat 75 of 77, of 3,146 (2.4%) of 10,257 (.73%)

From another source:
Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines***, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” (31,000 vs 10,257 or 3,146 or 77 or 75!!!!)
***atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, climatologists and meteorologists.

So, is the globe warming, YES, ever since the end of the Little Ice Age and the last glacial period 12,000 years ago. It is still not up to the temperatures before the Little Ice Age. Will it keep warming or cool again????????

Does the c*****e c****e, YES, always has and always will. It has changed many times and to more extremes before humans even existed.
What is the main driving force behind change? Well you can't blame it on humans before the last very short part of Earth's history.
Most will say the most significant factor is the amount of energy the planet receives from the Sun. And the Sun goes through cycles they are still trying to figure out. More energy = a warmer planet, Less energy = a cool/cold planet. Ever read any of the "Snow Ball Earth" stuff? About 40-50 years ago they were worried about a new Ice Age. Even writers in Sci Fi and other fields were doing stories based on a new ice age. And many who study the Sun say we probably have a low energy output cycle coming with another cooling and/or a little or full blown ice age as a result. Others disagree, who is right? I guess we wait to find out.

We are not really that large a part of the c*****e c****e compared to the sun. Better we should develop coping solutions and ways to adapt.

We are a very large part of the pollution problem and need to clean up our act. But even in certain types of atmospheric pollution and dust we are far outdone by one or two big volcanic eruptions. Look up the c*****e c****es of the year 1816, caused by a combination of one very large and several smaller volcanic eruptions and a period of major sunspot activity in combination.

And since CO2 from f****l f**ls is one of the major targets of the movement what is the other effect of more CO2 besides warming? It causes more abundant plant life. Including food crops. Plants take in CO2 like we do oxygen and give off – OXYGEN – increasing the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere also. This of course helps offset the deforestation done by humans.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

I found this summary from Wiki useful, especially if you follow all the links:
( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change ) It makes clear (at least to me) that this is an exceedingly complex subject. I can tell you that a substantial percentage the largest supercomputers in the world are dedicated to its modeling and study. What I know since I have seen the actual data from NOAA satellites and data repositories (and my own local experience during my 70+ years) is that it IS occurring. What I cannot tell is if we are able to change it, but it does seem defeatist to me not to make the effort.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

Computers can only work with what is put in and according to the programming.
If they don't know, or leave off, or add to or use a faulty modeling program????
Well as the computer guys say "Garbage in, Garbage out."

Yes, change is occurring - but right now the NASA people who study the sun are expecting a cooling period.

We have very little to do with the ups and downs. Better we put our efforts into environmental cleanup and learning how to cope with/live with the changes. The things the true believers want to change (which will wreak a huge part of the global economy if everyone goes along) will only make a tiny (most calculations show much less than 1%) difference. But we can learn to live with the changes for a lot less impact on our lives and economy. Not to mention a lot less money.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

We have good data - it’s very accurate, but it doesn’t go back far enough to accurately predict long term trends. Also climate is often changed by serendipitous and unpredictable events. I’ve spent a lot of years working with NOAA and NASA on data collection and analysis, so I have confidence in the data we have - I just wish we had more.

I’m not aware that NASA is predicting a cooling period in the near future, but I would be glad to learn - can you post links please?

Cheers

n3eg Loc: West coast USA

Don't know about NASA, but the sunspot experts are predicting Cycle 25 will be nearly the same as Cycle 24. I'm predicting it will be the same, but spread out with a broader peak. Either way, there won't be a grand minimum in the next 11 years.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Boy we are certainly near the bottom now. On 20, the DX activity except for FT8 has dropped tremendously, not even mentioning 10 & 15. I’m down to 40 and 75. I hope to live to see the next peak.

73
K4CKB

DavidPhares Loc: Chandler, Arizona

What?