UN: Sun plays significant role in global warming.

I said a NASA Physicist ,NOT NASA.
NASA as an organization is headed by BS artists .
Their website isnt necessarily going to reflect the truth about what their scientists say.
I read the NASA physicists prediction over a year ago.I wouldnt be surprised at all if hes no longer at NASA.
2020 IS "after 2013" but most estimates Ive heard are closer to "after 2013".
Anyway thats when the cycle will begin to diminish to a minimum.
Gee NASA website forgot to mention that the Maunder minimum and Dalton minimum refer to periods of minimum sunspot activity ?
That both periods were major cooling periods?
Guess theres still time to get a carbon tax passed before the population finds out .

 

BTW, Total Solar Irradiance( TSI) variability is just a BS strawman the IPCC uses to dismiss Solar affect on climate.
What could be the the mechanism controlling climate may be Galactic Cosmic Rays .
Or it may be vastly increased Solar UV output.
Or it may be simply how Suns vastly decreased (and newly polar reversed) magnetic field affects the Earths atmosphere.
We dont know the mechanism,but it isnt a drop in "Solar radiation".
But no matter the mechanism,Solar physicists predict minimum sunspots equates to minimal temperatures .

 

NASA/Marshall Solar Physics
Lower solar radition is quite different than a ice age. The page doesn't try to fool people, as it appears you have been from your sources.

We should have much more information in 2021 about the radiative forcing of this solar cycle.


Can you point to this scientific report where they decide that the radiation will drop enough for a long enough time for an ice age? I have seen nothing scholarly in that regard. The little ice age took a long time to form, and as you may have noted the earth is close to its peak solar radiation and temperature in recent times right now.

 

Mojo, you have been predicting cooling temperatures and a little ice age for years. If it doesn't happen in the next couple of years, since you predicted 2013, will you rethink your position?

 

First of all "Little Ice Age" is the name of a period which was not all that cold and should not be confused with an "Ice Age" glaciation period .
I referred to the Dalton minimum which was also known as the "Little Ice Age".
Maunder minimum was much harsher but still not an "Ice Age" glacial period .


Actually I tried about 6 months ago and I couldnt find the specific NASA physicists quote.
Might still be on the web but its not an easy Google.
Makes me think it was scrubbed for a reason.
Anyway there are dozens of Solar physicists all saying the same thing.

 

Ok, how about a link to any one of the dozens of solar physicists?

 

solar minimum global cooling - Google Search

 

BTW I didnt say 2013 ,I said after 2013.(meaning after Solar maximum.)
Im not brainwashed like you folks.
You bet everything on one spot of an infinitely numbered roulette wheel.
If your CO2 number comes up ,congratulations I will forever admit I was mistaken.
If your number doesnt come up ,theres possibly an infinite number of scientific explanations why .
Since the IPCC models have been wrong for the past 16 years ,and you have no actual empirical evidence to support your beliefs,I like my chances.
But yes. If after the Sun enters its minimal phase ,if the Earth doesnt cool,Ill admit Solar Physics is flawed.
Will that prove CO2 has anything to do with climate?
I dont think so.

 

BTW on a serious note .
If it becomes apparent the Earth is entering a cooling phase.Potentially millions of poor will die from crop failures and rising fuel and food prices as well as freezing to death.
At that point ,knock off your call to tax fuel and carbon ,unless you want to kill many many more millions.

 

So after 2013? I know there will be an ice age sometime after 2013. Perhaps 40,000 years after 2013, but sometime after 2013.
So, what timeframe are you looking at?

 

I didnt refer to an "Ice Age".
Im talking about a cooling period like the Dalton minimum occurring "after 2013" coinciding with the next Solar minimum.
Capice?
But since you bring it up ,the next "Ice Age" glacial period is due any time now.
Not in 40,000 years.
You do understand there is a difference between the Dalton minimum and an Ice Age glacial period?
Try Google.

 

Hmmm, ok thanks for the clarification.
So when how much is it forecasted to cool, and when?

 

Mojo, the Dalton minimum did not cause a little ice age, it was a period where the warming shortly reversed and included major volcanic eruptions not just lower solar radiation. The coldest year, the year without summer is attributed to volcanic activity. When I learned about the little ice age, it did not extend into this time period, but some have it going all the way through.

NASA is not very good at predicting solar cycles well into the future. This one is predicted to have lower sun spot activity and to last longer than the last cycle. The next one is expected to have even less sunspot activity. If the predictions are right, it will be the first time we can see if theories about solar activity and the little ice age are supported by data. The predictions only go out to around 2031 though, which is not nearly enough time to establish a little ice age. Our starting temperature is higher than in the Dalton minimum and ghg are higher, which means it doesn't make sense to back track in temperature that far. Still if this solar cycle does produce less radiation, it can only be a good thing in the short term.

 

Wow.

I'll just address the graph I posted, since your characterization of it is so far off.

See all the little bars, and the key at the right? Those are the results of various independent analyses of this. It shows small solar forcing because that's what the scholarly literature says. You can pretty much ask anybody, you'll get the same answer.

Ask NASA GISS, estimates from 1750 forward:



Ask the IPCC:



What does NOAA say:


EPA?


Pretty much everywhere I look, I see the pretty much the same picture.

Might be, maybe, kinda-sorta, somehow all of these organizations have it grossly wrong. But that's not the odds-on bet.

 

First problem, what could it be from the literature? Hmm. Could it be that graph from skeptical science is from too short a time period? We have about 400 years of sun spot data according to NASA. There are various ways to estimate how much radiation sunspots indicate, and since they have been relatively stable until now during the modern maximum, which NASA predicts is now ending. The top NASA graph does show significant solar influence when going out to 1750, 20% as much as CO2. The new low sunspots if predicted correctly will give scentists a chance to check on these theories. Or we could look at your pretty little graph that only has a time period of stability, and assume solar radiation does not vary. Note, no respectable climate scientist thinks this.

Hmm. What else is wrong with the graph? Error bars? Where are they? The IPCC estimates that sensitivity to ghg has a range of 2-4.5, we now see some that say solar radiation may be significant. Look there for the range of literature, and neglable should not be part of the discussion.

Finally there are the issues with CR perhaps affecting oscilations and other weather phenomenon. Somehow some weather forecasters have been able to use these to solar activity for 3-6 month forecasts to make them more accurate. There are various papers starting in about 1959 about the phenomenon.

Just because you want it to be all about ghg, doesn't mean you can tell everyone else to ignore the literature. Your new charts seem to say that solar radiation may be a significant driver especially if CR causes some of that cloud albedo effect. Did you read them before you presented them to me?

 

Climatologists have little understanding of how climate works,but they and you pretend to have total understanding.
The problem CAGW believers have is you are backed into a corner.
You say its all due to CO2 and now you cant LEARN anything new about he Earth.Because you all ready know it all.
Not a very good position to be in.
Anyway heres an interesting article which begins by referencing the IPCCs ridiculous stance of dismissing Solar effects on climate.
Ill bet you havent considered squat about the mechanisms discussed.
The end of the article refers to Solar wind.Which I suspect is the true driver of climate.

What Causes El Niño / La Niña? IPCC Doesn’t Know, But Builds Models and Makes Projections Anyway

 

AustinG @ 33, I would like to know where to find projections/predictions of the next solar cycle, other than Penn and Livingston.

All, especially mojo: you are missing a lot of fun by not following Zhou and Tung's recent papers, including the one I cited from PNAS. The other two are in Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences.

Mechanisms for the the several periodic (or quasi-periodic) oceanic cycles are poorly know. forecasts are empirical, short-range, and not overwhelmingly good. This is why I have been commenting about possible shortcomings of coupled climate models now in use. The AR5 may get into that. If not, and if the pattern of each decade's air T warmer than the previous fails in the future, you'd better believe that climatologists will get into it. I think (more of them) should already, but that falls under 'opinion'.

There is a long and not particularly distinguished history of linking weather/climate patterns to the solar cycle. I wish y'all would look. The most common is for a couple of solar cycles to correlate with some climate feature, then it gets published, and the third time around it fails completely. The whole enterprise fell from favor, but now we have a new crop of denialist-fueled correlators who don't see that they have much to learn from all that old stuff. So it's come around again.

Yet again mojo has brightened our day by heaping calumny on ENSO-predictors lacking mechanisms. Brightened because of the similarity to his favorite solar-cycle predictor's modus. Double that because he is apparently unaware of the irony.

 

This is the latest I have read about sunspots and it talks about the patterns for cycle 23
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/papers/hathadh/2011Hathaway.pdf
The NASA prediction for cycle 24, and the link uses this information and details some other methods
NASA/Marshall Solar Physics

The older prediction from NOAA is here
Solar Cycle Progression and Prediction

Some at NASA and NOAA are predicting a peak as late as 2014, but all expect the peak number of sunspots to be much lower than cycle 23. This will give a good opportunity to see what the coreletion really is between sunspots and various types of solar radiation.

 

I dont see any irony, but I am well aware that Piers Corbyn uses the mechanism to make correct predictions.
Thats why I have confidence that Solar effect on the Earths magnetic field is the actual control of weather and climate.
If the IPCC made correct predictions about anything at all ,I might believe them as well.But they only make wrong predictions.
The only irony I see, is that some believe the IPCC after mistake and lies again and again,yet shun someone who consistently is correct.

 

Dude, put up or shut up.

Anybody can imagine stuff. Particularly when it comes to clouds, or galactic cosmic rays, or whatever.

Show me your scholarly sources, preferably in graphical form, showing the 20th century temperature increase being attributed mainly to increases in solar forcing. I have been unable to find any. All I seem to be able to find is sources saying that solar changes aren't a significant driver. Certainly, since the satellite era (starting 1979, say), solar output has been roughly constant. Ditto, cosmic rays. Tough to attribute rising temperatures to that.

Surely, as strongly as you have stated your opinions, you can show a graph, with attribution, showing solar as the main driver. Right?

I've been showing graph after graph. Reasonable source after reasonable source. So look at the thread title. Show me any graph to back that up. Any source that's willing to parse out the data and suggest that the sun is the main driver.

Then we can have a conversation about whose graph is better.

As always, I hope that you and yours are deeply and irrevocably invested in Texas real estate. So that you may fully reap what you are sowing.