Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 61

Thread: Scientists warning of "Grand Solar Minimum" leading to global cooling

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Wa. state
    Posts
    289

    Scientists warning of "Grand Solar Minimum" leading to global cooling

    Is there anything to this? According to a number of scientists we are heading into an extended period of lessening solar activity and cooling temps globally. Should I start stocking up on food? They go on to say that CO2 is a very small component driving global temps and that the Sun is the primary source of global heating and cooling. They also say to expect increased earthquake activity.

    https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...9&&FORM=VDRVRV

    https://us.blastingnews.com/opinion/...002291569.html

    https://watchers.news/2018/02/10/joh...m-earthquakes/
    Last edited by Grant Hatch; 2018-Nov-27 at 06:20 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    656
    An opinion piece in something called Blasting News stating, without links to sources, that a bunch of fringe scientists thinks we are heading for a period of earthquakes and volcano eruptions due to a solar minimum? I think there is no reason to worry yet...

    Wouldn't survive a day in the ATM forum.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Wa. state
    Posts
    289
    Quote Originally Posted by glappkaeft View Post
    An opinion piece in something called Blasting News stating, without links to sources, that a bunch of fringe scientists thinks we are heading for a period of earthquakes and volcano eruptions due to a solar minimum? I think there is no reason to worry yet...

    Wouldn't survive a day in the ATM forum.
    I've added a couple more links.... If the moderators want to move this to ATM go ahead. I was hoping it would receive at least a bit of attention from mainstream though.

    (edit) OK, I just read the sticky on Global Warming and realize I should have posted this in the ATM forum. Sorry
    Last edited by Grant Hatch; 2018-Nov-27 at 06:33 PM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    48,163
    Quote Originally Posted by Grant Hatch View Post
    (edit) OK, I just read the sticky on Global Warming and realize I should have posted this in the ATM forum. Sorry
    Grant Hatch

    If you are advocating these ideas, yes, it needs to be in ATM, where you will be expected to defend these ideas. But ATM is not the place to ask questions about these ATM ideas; if you are just asking (which it appears you are), Science & Technology is perfectly fine.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    285
    I do wish we had more discussion on solar physic's
    and how likely a pause or minimum is in the near term and how long it may last

    with out nut sites or B S earthquake predictions

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    48,163
    I only checked out this one and it seems to be a hodgepodge of unrelated things combined to scare people.

    They reference Piers Corbyn (link to the wikipedia about him). It appears he is a weather forecaster (not a climatologist) with very non-mainstream ideas and is a climate change denier.

    Corbyn's predictions are based on what is called "The Solar Weather Technique".[24] The technique "combines statistical analysis of over a century of historical weather patterns with clues derived from solar observations."[1] He considers past weather patterns and solar observations and sun-earth magnetic connectivity. Conventional meteorology claims that such influences cause minimal impact on the Earth's atmosphere.[25] Corbyn has declined to publish the details of his method.
    Corbyn asserts that earthquakes can be triggered by solar activity, and hence that he can to some extent predict them.[36]

    In an article in the technology magazine Wired entitled "The Fraudulent Business of Earthquake and Eruption Prediction",[37] Erik Klemetti, an assistant professor of Geosciences at Denison University, accused Corbyn of "cherry picking" and said people who claimed to be able to forecast earthquakes were "faith healers of the geologic community and should be seen as such".
    I found less about David Dilley, other than his own ATM website, and he seems to be another climate change denier.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Wa. state
    Posts
    289
    Thanks for the response Swift. I am NOT advocating, only curious about these claims of Global cooling since they are so.... well, Non mainstream. I have long felt that the more or less 10,000 year recent warm period is somewhat unusual if looking back 10's or 100's of thousands of years and seems to have allowed mankind to create our present high tech civilization due to increased climate stability. If it is possible we are heading into another cooling period I'd think that would be deserving of a serious look by our current civilizations policy makers.

    Also, (nota) I am perfectly happy to simplify the question and forget about the increased earthquake activity claimed by some of these global cooling advocates since the connection between it and reduced solar activity seems a bit tenuous to me and will only cloud the issue.
    Last edited by Grant Hatch; 2018-Nov-27 at 07:58 PM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    48,163
    Here is a graph for the temperature deviation (as well as CO2 and dust) for the last 400,000 years (from this article). So yes, there are warmer and cooler periods and the last 10,000 years or so have been warmer, though given how long humans and our ancestors have been around, we have survived multiple ones of these.

    It is hard to tell from these graphs, but a "rapid" change in climate by climate standards is not rapid by human standards, and still takes hundreds and thousands of years. I don't recall all of the drivers, but they include solar output, orbital variations, and other things.

    Now look at this graph for the last 12,000 years or so (from this NOAA website)



    If you look at the last 5000 years or so, there has been a general downward trend. It is arguable that we have been gradually entering a cooling period.

    But pay particular attention to the right-most end of the line, the last 100 years or so and the steepness of the increase.

    That is what the concern about climate change is all about. Yes, climate changes all the time (as long as the Earth has had an atmosphere). Yes, the Earth's climate has been hotter and colder. Yes, there have even been bigger changes. But other than sudden events like the meteor that killed the dinosaurs, natural changes do not occur this rapidly, and when changes do happen this rapidly (whatever the cause) they are catastrophic events.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Wa. state
    Posts
    289
    I have been a firm believer in global warming for many years, hence my interest at encountering these global cooling claims. I visited the gov climate site you referenced and there is no arguing with the data presented. On the other hand, if looked at closely the last couple of years do show a slight cooling trend. whether it will continue as claimed is another matter entirely. Interestingly the data does also show a 5000 year cooling trend as you stated which abruptly ended with the advent of industrialization and increased CO2. I wonder just how much the claimed Solar minimums (now and future) could effect global temps even with the increased CO2 if the sun has minimums equal to or greater than the Maunder minimum of "mini ice age" as forecast by these "Scientists".

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,013
    i used to worry about the absence of steady warming since the ice age, due to increased water vapour as the air warmed, and the graph shows it did warm steadily but only a fraction of a degree on average. But the solar cycle is presumably the main driver and we would be slowly heading for the next ice age in a few thousand years. But then suddenly the temperature rises fast and the CO2 rises fast to levels higher than in that period. So right now we have reversed the trend. If you take a long view maybe we are postponing an ice age but right now we are accelerating in a most unnatural way. The increased temperature does also mean more water vapour in the atmosphere which is a positive feedback on warming. (water vapour is a greenhouse IR absorber) So we really are in man made warming a a rate unprecedented in the ice core record. The cliche "unmapped territory" is maybe over used but this rate of change is going to bring surprises as is now being reported by climate change scientists. Here in the UK they predict summers like the south of France and warm wet winters in 70 years when I shall be 140 which some people may find acceptable but it includes storms, floods, draughts, gales, sea rise and, most of all, drastic changes to insects and plants. Since it seems we will continue to burn carbon, it's the future, I guess.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    48,163
    Quote Originally Posted by Grant Hatch View Post
    <snip>
    I visited the gov climate site you referenced and there is no arguing with the data presented. On the other hand, if looked at closely the last couple of years do show a slight cooling trend. whether it will continue as claimed is another matter entirely.
    I assume you are referring to the first graph on this page. Several thoughts...

    When looking at climate change, don't get caught up in year-to-year differences. For the most part, you are down to the noise level. Second, there are other natural "cycles" going on. You've already mentioned very long term things like solar output (also orbital variations). At the other extreme, there are very short term variations like day-to-night, day-to-day, and season-to-season. But there are some interesting medium term ones, such as the El Nino / La Nina cycles (there are also less well know ones). They account for a lot of the year-to-year variations we see.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    48,163
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    <snip>
    Here in the UK they predict summers like the south of France and warm wet winters in 70 years when I shall be 140 which some people may find acceptable but it includes storms, floods, draughts, gales, sea rise and, most of all, drastic changes to insects and plants.
    I recall at least one regional model for my part of the midwest United States predicted that we would develop much hotter summers and much colder winters, but with the average for the year going up.

    I don't want to commit the mistake of confusing climate and weather, but that is consistent with the weather we have seen over the last decade or so.

    Speaking of climate versus weather, I heard an analogy recently that I really liked (though it has its flaws, like all analogies).

    Climate is to weather, as personality is to mood. Your mood changes from moment to moment (or day to day), but your personality stays fundamentally the same. And if someone suffers from depression, the fact that they are happy some particular moment, doesn't mean they are cured. Similarly, just because some day is cold and snowy doesn't mean global warming is a hoax.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,013
    yes I think the PR error about global warming is that a degree or so of average warming is not alarming. But the average is not what any of us experience. The climate does drive weather and there is a chaotic element that means extremes will happen more often, and that is alarming. there will also be cold spells as well as hot spells like a normal variation only more so. There will be times when deniers can say it's cold today, of course and there's that confirmation bias thing that works both ways.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    48,163
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    <snip>
    and there's that confirmation bias thing that works both ways.
    I would slightly disagree there. There are innumerable examples of climate change deniers saying things like "it is cold this winter, that disproves global warming", but I never hear one of them turn around and go "wow, really hot summer, I guess global warming is real".
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Grant Hatch View Post
    Is there anything to this?
    There is nothing to it. When actual climate scientists add a Grand Solar Minimum to models they still get future global warming.
    A grand solar minimum would barely make a dent in human-caused global warming
    Peer-reviewed research, physics, and math all tell us that a grand solar minimum would have no more than a 0.3C cooling effect, barely enough to put a dent in human-caused global warming.
    Your sources are not climate scientists.
    A "Exact Dates Given for Grand Solar Minimum Cooling Globally, IPCC Tries to Suppress Research" video that is obviously lying. Predicting solar cycles is inexact (no exact dates). IPCC just periodically collates existing scientific research.

    An article lying about scientists making predictions that imagined global cooling would cause earthquakes. The first lie is that"Piers Corbyn (crank weather "forecaster"), David Dilley (ex-weather forecaster), John L Casey (author with a global cooling obsession), Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov (astrophysicist), Ben Davidson (lawyer and economist) are scientists, i.e. have training and publications in climate science (the global cooling) and geology (earthquakes).
    A "the predictions of the IPCC and its political mouthpieces have largely failed" lie. The IPCC makes no predictions. The predictions of climate science models have largely succeeded because the measured temperatures fit in the range of predictions.

    A video interview of the engineer and author John L Casey.

    ETA: Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov might be considered the most credible of the list as an astrophysicist but he is in denial of some basic physics. He denies the greenhouse effect. He attributes global warning to solar radiation but Are we heading into global cooling? Who Are these Scientists Predicting Cooling?
    Solar activity has been flat for the past 50 years, and yet the planet warmed approximately 0.6C during that period.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2018-Nov-27 at 11:39 PM.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Wa. state
    Posts
    289
    It seems he worked for both NASA and NOAA but has no particular expertise in climatology. He bases his conclusions on statistical analysis of certain data instead.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Grant Hatch View Post
    It seems he worked for both NASA and NOAA but has no particular expertise in climatology. He bases his conclusions on statistical analysis of certain data instead.
    The statistical analysis is of sunspots to extract cycles that only John Casey seems to find and cannot publish in a scientific journal. He adds a false belief that climate is always controlled by the Sun and thus there will be global cooling because one of his cycles is entering a cooling period.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,013
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    I would slightly disagree there. There are innumerable examples of climate change deniers saying things like "it is cold this winter, that disproves global warming", but I never hear one of them turn around and go "wow, really hot summer, I guess global warming is real".
    I meant that climate change deniers will pick on the cold spells and climate change believers will pick on the hot spells and extreme weather and neither will change their views when faced with contrary weather. It's important for us to see our own bias when reviewing evidence and that's a hard discipline to follow. The graph is the evidence of the greatly accelerated change in the last decades compared with millenia.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    35,664
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    I meant that climate change deniers will pick on the cold spells and climate change believers will pick on the hot spells and extreme weather and neither will change their views when faced with contrary weather. It's important for us to see our own bias when reviewing evidence and that's a hard discipline to follow. The graph is the evidence of the greatly accelerated change in the last decades compared with millenia.
    It's not called "weather change". It requires you to look at patterns in the overall weight of evidence over longer periods.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,013
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    It's not called "weather change". It requires you to look at patterns in the overall weight of evidence over longer periods.
    well maybe to engage a greater number it should be called weather change. Or if you like, "ocean change," because that is significant but like "climate change", the phrase "ocean change" is not relating to most people. The scientist will say we cannot necessarily predict weather change from climate change because we don't have the evidence, but that is the connection that will start to convince the non scientists and that is what the official bodies are now starting to do.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    35,664
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    well maybe to engage a greater number it should be called weather change. Or if you like, "ocean change," because that is significant but like "climate change", the phrase "ocean change" is not relating to most people. The scientist will say we cannot necessarily predict weather change from climate change because we don't have the evidence, but that is the connection that will start to convince the non scientists and that is what the official bodies are now starting to do.
    Inaccuracy for the sake of popularization is no solution. It merely substitutes one form of ignorance for another.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    1,653
    My understanding is that we've gone through a lot of "Grand Solar Minimums" before, we'll go through a lot to come, so the issue doesn't concern me either way. Also, I don't recall seeing any papers in SAO/NASA saying we're about to have one now.
    There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
    Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi (1883)

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,013
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    Inaccuracy for the sake of popularization is no solution. It merely substitutes one form of ignorance for another.
    I do not agree. popularisation when done responsibly is education. The message for a long time has been restricted to an average global temperature increase with very little context as to the historical record, the recent improvements in sensor information, and especially the consequences which can be predicted within error bounds. The result is a vague impression that a few degrees does not sound like much. Most people see the last ice age as distant history, not as a recurring cycle. I agree that it is not justified to blame every storm on man made global warming but the statistical evidence builds up into a trend. It is not inaccurate to state that climate change is expected to drive weather change and ocean current change and if there is an informed debate about it, that's good.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    1,653
    On the topic of accuracy and popularization of science (astronomy in particular), Isaac Asimov wrote a science book about the Earth-Moon system in 1960 called The Double Planet. He argued that the Earth-Moon system could, in certain ways, be properly viewed as a "double planet" and carefully explained a lot of astronomical detail for laymen and younger readers. While we still argue over the definition of the unofficial title "double planet", it cannot be denied from reader reactions (me included) that Asimov did a great service in recasting our view of Earth and Moon, intensifying the public interest in the Apollo program and Moon landings. The book came out several times in the '60s before Apollo 11 landed.
    There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
    Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi (1883)

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    1,653
    Nigel Calder's 1969 book, Violent Universe, did exactly the same thing. In discussing recent advances in astronomy, he sought to change to public view of the cosmos from being a static, dull place to instead be exciting and startlingly dangerous to living beings.
    There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
    Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi (1883)

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Wa. state
    Posts
    289
    I heard somewhere that the present warm era was expected to last another 40,000 years even without CO2 increases. I think it was based on orbital oscilations and earth axis orientation? Has anyone else heard about this? I wonder if whoever it was saying that took into account CO2 and the possible disruption (due to polar ice melting) of the "conveyor belt" ocean current keeping the northern hemisphere warmer than it would otherwise be.
    Last edited by Grant Hatch; 2018-Nov-28 at 05:28 PM.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    35,664
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    I do not agree. popularisation when done responsibly is education. The message for a long time has been restricted to an average global temperature increase with very little context as to the historical record, the recent improvements in sensor information, and especially the consequences which can be predicted within error bounds. The result is a vague impression that a few degrees does not sound like much. Most people see the last ice age as distant history, not as a recurring cycle. I agree that it is not justified to blame every storm on man made global warming but the statistical evidence builds up into a trend. It is not inaccurate to state that climate change is expected to drive weather change and ocean current change and if there is an informed debate about it, that's good.
    … Anyway, this is off topic. Start a thread if you want to continue this discussion.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    285
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2NI1bQe8I4A

    LINK IS TO THE FEMALE RUSSIAN DOC IN ASTRO-PHYSIC'S LECTURE

    she is the one who did the magnetic solar wave research the wave charts are from
    and much of the grand minimum prediction in cycle 25 is her's

    her claim is the reduced magnetic waves also effect particles in the solar wind
    and the increase solar wind particles effect a bigger temp reduction on earth
    not just the insolation rate that is only a small part reduction in temps
    Last edited by nota; 2018-Nov-29 at 02:17 AM.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    12,430
    Quote Originally Posted by nota View Post
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2NI1bQe8I4A

    LINK IS TO THE FEMALE RUSSIAN DOC IN ASTRO-PHYSIC'S LECTURE

    she is the one who did the magnetic solar wave research the wave charts are from
    and much of the grand minimum prediction in cycle 25 is her's

    her claim is the reduced magnetic waves also effect particles in the solar wind
    and the increase solar wind particles effect a bigger temp reduction on earth
    not just the insolation rate that is only a small part reduction in temps
    Thanks for that link! Her model makes for predictions for cooler temperatures due to the Sun's magnetic activity going into a minimum period as soon as 2020. It seems that an independent result based on planetary motions that matches her results gives greater credence to both their claims given we have two lines of evidence. I'm a little unclear if she is actually arguing that planetary motions are causal to her magnetic modeling, or if it is possibly coincidental?

    The last minute was interesting as well -- the moderator noted, with some applause, that we "don't have the culture anymore" that treats science as it should be treated where, IMO, he is implying that all research and models should be respected on their merits and independent from social or political influences.
    We know time flies, we just can't see its wings.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,953
    Quote Originally Posted by nota View Post
    We have to be dubious of science by YouTube video when scientific literature exists. This is an actually dubious video, a presentation for the Global Warming Policy Foundation
    The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a climate change denial lobby group in the United Kingdom, whose stated aims are to challenge "extremely damaging and harmful policies" envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming.[3][4]
    There is deep ignorance about global warming happening over the last 40 years while solar output was constant or decreasing slightly.
    There is deep ignorance about the effects of a new Maunder Minimum on climate (A grand solar minimum would barely make a dent in human-caused global warming).

    There is Dr. Valentina Zharkova (mathematics and astrophysics background) trying to do climate science. Zharkova has a paper that gives a good fit to the last 3 and current solar cycles. The prediction are for cycles 25 and 26 and end before 2040. A solar physicist commented that their model is too simplistic and based on only 35 years of data. What is worse is that the climate "prediction" is Zharkova's personal opinion, not based on any climate modeling that she did.
    The 'imminent mini ice age' myth is back, and it's still wrong

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •