Sunspot Cycle appears broken at 24-cycles

RealClimate: What if the Sun went into a new Grand Minimum?

By Georg Feulner, one of the authors of the paper cited at the end of the original article in this thread.

The models that replicate the climate effects of the Maunder Minimum suggest that the impact this would be small. (Per the article, the dip at 2010 is from a large volcanic eruption that they chose to model as part of that paper.)

 

Those red graphs have already diverged from the instrumental record blue line for the past dozen years.
Obviously the model isnt working too well.
Garbage in Garbage out.

 

mojo,

just b/c for such complex system it is virtually impossible to build a precise model which would take into consideration all variations and all physical processes, it does not mean the basic scientific facts behind it are not sound.

Look at the people who try to model something alot simpler like stock market. Just b/c their models turn out wrong does not mean Wall Street does not exists; really

 

By the way if a little ice age ensues,there could be crop failures and massive starvation.
Heating oil will be scarce and expensive.With Cap and trade in place in California,our power needs are being outsourced.
California wont be getting any imported power from Wash,Oregon,Canada.Those areas will need all the power they can produce.

If that model is wrong it may cost lives because it prevents those in power from any preparation.
The AGW cheerleaders little white lies may be killing people very soon.
The least the Feds should do is stop requiring ethanol and start stockpiling food.

 

you remind me a college dorm roommate from ages ago. He truly believed in UFO, abductions and so on crap despite all the [lack of] evidence.

His favorable one was in the middle of conversation he would run to the window, open it, point at the light in the sky and say in dramatic tone: look! this is an UFO!

to the argument "..calm down, this is just an airplane.." his answer was "no way! airplanes don't fly that often"

 

Again, if the instrumental record blue line in post #22 is regarded as an accurate representation of the recent past in post #23, I say we're making progress here.

You know what keeps me up at night? Not every night but sometimes. The earth's ocean is (very roughly) 1000 times as dense as the atmosphere, and 10,000 times as massive. The current energy imbalance (more in than out) is looked for in the atmoshere, but much of it must be going into the ocean. And a lot of heat storage there means a teeny tiny temperature change.

It is as if the system is devilishly designed to make it difficult to observe climate energy balance until it has changed rather a lot. I know that current models do their best with multi-layer oceans, but they are just not satisfying yet. I've not yet seen a model that will spontaneously form an "ENSO", they all need to be kicked (then they do it). And yet, of course, this sloshy thing exists. When it's ENSO+ than a larger fraction of the newly stored heat appears in the atmosphere. When it's ENSO- the opposite. And because we still can't model oceans, the air temp has all these ups and downs that attract scepticism like honey.

As if it mattered, I have good confidence in the radiative transfer part of atmospheric models (with ??? remaining for clouds and aerosols). The ocean part seems much weaker. Strengthening it would require much better spatial measures at different depths, with accuracy that would stretch technology to say the least.

So I expect that scepticism on directional climate change will not end soon.

 

It doesn't look like any more than the 'divergence' noise over the entire displayed time frame.

 

The beauty of the Solar minimum is that very soon well see what the true driver of climate is.
I mean that thing the climate models all ignore,the Sun.
Whats nice is we wont have to wait 100 years to see if AGW theory is BS or not.A few years or a decade and we will know.
Ill buy you all T-shirts that say
"Im dumber than a first grader.I believed in global warming theory." .

 

If you add the last 6 months to the blue that is a down line.
If the red were flat Id agree .But the reds are clearly rising .

 

When a billion people die of starvation.Just remember you enabled the BS science that didnt save them.
Live with that on your conscience.Ill remind you if you forget.

 

They ought to be doing that anyway. And they should especially be doing it if AGW is true. Just-in-time delivery for food is a recipe for global starvation.

 

With all the science,theory,hypothesis,conjecture,guess and B. S. i just read on sun spots, global warming, mini ice age etc because this is Prius Chat, Will i get better mileage or a higher return on my investment???

 

The discussion about a "little ice age" reminds me of nothing more than people who were worried that the Y2K issue would lock up their computers. Almost none of them thought to set the date of their PC ahead to 1/1/2000 and see what happened.

So, to inject a note of rationality here.

The "little ice age" is not an ice age. During the past few ice ages, global temperatures dropped roughly 5 degees C over the course of about 100,000 years. During the "little ice age", global temperatures dropped by maybe 0.2 degrees C over a few hundred years. Depends on where you mark the start and stop, and whose reconstruction you use. The paper I cited above projected 0.3 degrees C impact by 2100.

So, using 0.2 degrees C global temperature decline, for the short-term impact of having the sun stuck at the minimum, is in the ballpark for both the historical data and for model-based estimates.

Now, let's see what happens if I set my PC to 1/1/2000. I mean, what happens if we drop global temperatures by 0.2C. It would take global temperature all the way down to where it was in ... call it 1997or so. Suppose temperature plummets by 0.4 degrees C. That would take us all the way back to the temperatures we had in ... eh .. call it 1985 or so.



Fact is, based either on historical reconstructions or on the modeled projections, the likely impact of the sun remaining at the minimum (which, per the graphs in total solar irradiance I posted earlier, it is not) is pretty much exactly as it was characterized in the article I cited earlier. It is small relative to the ongoing warming.

I think there are many good reasons to have food and water stockpiled, going back at least to the 7 fat years and 7 lean years. I do so myself. But a new Maunder Minimum is not one of them. A few tenths of a degree off the current temperature, by itself, is unlikely to generate a crisis, and might even be beneficial to crop yields.

Finally, sometimes you have to think outside the box to understand where others are coming from. Maybe some posters think that if the sun remains at the current low, temperatures will revert to the temperatures actually observed during the Maunder Minimum. That seems unlikely. We've had solar lows every 11 years for the past N decades. We have direct measurements of the change in total solar irradiance. We know the impact on temperatures. It didn't happen then, it won't happen now.

 

Wasnt there famine in Ireland during the LIA?
It doesnt take much cold to ruin crops.
Today we have less variety of crops.
While there are hundreds of types of potatoes ,we only grow a few types.We grow 1 type of Monsanto corn and other grains.I hope they didnt bioengineer them only to resist AGW.
This makes us much more susceptible to massive crop failure.
Also for the world poor,just a small price increase will mean starvation.
Prices are already at starvation heights.
It would only take another doubling or tripling of food price to set off starvation and destabilization of governments .

 

I am one of those who did. Guess what? My computer broke. I also did it with the electronic funds transfer software that I was working on. Guess what? That broke as well. Then I, and many others, worked diligently for long hours to fix all the problems, and remained on call over new year's eve to fix any problems that might have been missed.

Now everyone treats it like it was all hysteria, and that the warnings were useless, and it was a huge joke. Without those warnings and without the hard work of many people, it would have been just as forecast.

Please find a better analogy.

 

That was later.

True, though the potato famine was a single variety of potato. The South Americans who domesticated potatoes would plant 100's of varieties in each garden.

They didn't bio-engineer them to resist AGW at all. They bio-engineered them to resist Roundup®.

Less than that I suspect.

 

save your money to pay for your heating bill.

And while you at it do not paint everything black and white. Just b/c anthropogenic activity produces GHG and impacts climate it does not mean there will be no next Ice Age. The natural processes had kept things in balance for last few millions of years, they may be sufficient to compensate for AGW.

But what if it isn't and we have a runaway train heading for another Permian extinction?

 

Didn't mean to offend. I'm from the generation that learned on punch cards, so I understand the issue. Had the implementation of a lot of Medicare policy issues at that time delayed, due to having to rewrite COBOL claims processing programs to accommodate the new date logic. That said, I reset my PC date and nothing happened. My point was that there were a lot of people who would rather perseverate about the risks than do even the simplest thing to figure out whether or not their own PC was at risk. As here, by subtracting the likely impact from current global temperatures.

I'll find a better analogy next time.