Three decades of cooling ahead

The Length Of Day (LOD) suggests the earth has not slowed down much since 2007. But the annual cycle is counter to what I would expect from a sea level rise alone. When I checked J.L. Chen's web page, I think he is looking in that direction too but his shared data is . . . inconclusive. It simply means we're scratchin' our heads.

I need to explain:

As the sea level rises, it is like a spinning ice skater extending their arms, in this case ~3.2 mm/year, around the 70% of the earth covered by water. Now this may not seem like a lot but we do see seasonal effects in the rotational Length Of Day. Here is an extreme case analysis:
What Would Happen to Earth's Rotation if the Ice Caps Melted?

But the simple answer is based upon sea level rise:

It ain't happenin'.

Bob Wilson

 

Obviously we should all burn and pollute more to stop the cooling. I am going to go trade in all my hybrids and EVs for a cattle farm.

 

If we went back to grasslands, open range, and cattle there is good evidence that the environment would improve. Unfortunately people went into debt to buy that land, and they are going to use it If you have the cash, it may make the world a cooler place if you rode horses and bikes instead of hybrids and evs. Make sure to put up a wind turbine and a satelite dish to be a modern cowboy.

If you mean a factory beef operation, yes that is bad for the environment. Just checking.

I'm not sure what you are looking at. Is it this?
Global Cooling is Here | Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization'

You can see the net of esterbrook's cooling, warming, cooling, warming is that we will have net warming.

Now this is a valid point for discussion. Those IPCC models don't seem to take into account ocean oscilations effects on temperature. Esterbrook's PDO theory looks a little far fetched though on how to take them into account. We definitely have had warm years and cold years, and we talk about a 30 years period for climate, but i don't think he really has reasoned out well how to model

and why did he leave out ENSO?

 

Does stirring a pot keep it from boiling?

Bob Wilson

 

tochatihu thread not mine.

But if you are asking if things like ENSO and solar radiation iaffect temperature on a multi decade time period absolutely.

Do I think Easterbrook's model is correct on how these things work, no.

 

Natural oscillations give denialists decades to piss around and do nothing.

Until the deniers can come up with a physically robust explanation for how to discharge greenhouse warming I'll continue to ignore them. And on that note, I still am unsure how the earth has reversed previous GHG amplification cycles.

 

Generally the atmosphere heats from below.
Infra Red energy rises being absorbed by Water vapor and CO2 and re-emitted.

But since you mistakenly claimed the atmosphere heats from above.

There is energy from above the atmosphere which is mostly unaccounted for , heating of the Stratosphere by the Suns large recent increase in output of UV energy .
Unaccounted for because Climate Scientists dont have a clue about the Suns UV variations.
Which could very possibly be the controller of climate.
IPCC doesnt even mention it.
But Solar UV variation of 10% is huge compared to minute "Total Solar Irradiance".Which is dismissed by the IPCC as miniscule.

 

I can appreciate their speculations but there were too many "a miracle occurs here." For example:

Any reduction in global mean near-surface temperature due to a future decline in solar
activity is likely to be a small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming. However,
variability in ultraviolet solar irradiance is linked to modulation of the Arctic and North
Atlantic Oscillations, suggesting the potential for larger regional surface climate effects. Here,
we explore possible impacts through two experiments designed to bracket uncertainty in
ultraviolet irradiance in a scenario in which future solar activity decreases to Maunder
Minimum-like conditions by 2050. Both experiments show regional structure in the
wintertime response, resembling the North Atlantic Oscillation, with enhanced relative
cooling over northern Eurasia and the eastern United States. For a high-end decline in solar
ultraviolet irradiance, the impact on winter northern European surface temperatures over the
late twenty-first century could be a significant fraction of the difference in climate change
between plausible AR5 scenarios of greenhouse gas concentrations.

Not new
Interesting stuff
Mealy mouth words
This is wrong​

This 'experiment', actually climate model runs, suggests a speculated "Maunder Minimum" might occur that has not been seen in the modern era, a paleo-record. Using paleo aliases from the "Maunder Minimum" for metrics of something not found in the modern record, it reads like "could have, should have, would have.' But calling these modified climate models an 'experiment' is a semantic trick designed to fool readers like 'liar-liar mojo.'

The interesting point are the claimed remarkable powers of 'ultraviolet irradiance.' Somehow this light, blocked from the earth by International treaties keeping ozone depleting refrigerants out of the atmosphere, is claimed to be able to stop the Altantic currents transporting Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean heat to Northern Atlantic latitudes. We are faced with this remarkable solar minimum with more ultraviolet . . . this is counter to black-body radiation, spectral distribution. It would require a remarkable new physics, Nobel prize stuff.

Yes, I'll print a review copy but it doesn't start well.

Bob Wilson

 

I read the gist of the article differently, to say that even if a very unexpected solar minimum occurs, AGW will continue albeit with some regions appearing to have a pause.

 

I was more interested in the physics and methodology. I agree that their first sentence gives AGW.

Any reduction in global mean near-surface temperature due to a future decline in solar
activity is likely to be a small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming.​

If someone claims AGW exists but uses an inaccurate description of why, I will disagree with their method. Right answer, wrong method . . . not good.

Bob Wilson

 

Ok, I've had a chance to look at more content of the paper:

1) Solar irradiance

In the satellite record augmented by sunspot activity, we see 1/2, 2-full, and 2/3, records. Clearly the peak irradiance shows a decline. However the minimum?

So I put two straight lines at the same angles overlaying the above chart:

The minimum irradiance, 1,360.6 W/m**2, is flat-lined. In contrast, the maximum irradiance, shows a decline. To call that a 'Maunder Minimum' minimum belies the rather modest decrease in overall irradiance, (1362-1360.6)/1360.6 ~= 0.103%. Still, they did not go too far with only "a cooling of 0.13 and 0.12 C . . . This offsets or delays the global warming trend by ~2 years." (pp. 2)

2) Regional Effects North Atlantic

This depends upon UV radiance at the equator driving the currents that carry warm Gulf water to northern latitudes. Although I appreciate the thought, I don't have enough information to agree or disagree on whether is mechanism is real or speculation. As described in the paper as the 'top-down' mechanism (pp. 2):

• altered heating of the stratosphere by solar ultraviolet irradiance
• temperatures in the region of the tropical stratopause . . . changes in subtropical stratospheric winds
• in geostrophic balance with the ... equator-to-pole temperature gradient
• signal propagates poleward and downward
• aplified by altered planetary wave activity
• communicated throughout the depth of the troposphere in Pacific and Atlantic basins
• drive changes in tropical lower stratosphere temperatures which affect the troposphere

That is a long drink of water that remains . . . strange to me because at the bottom is the Gulf Stream that carries the tropical heat toward the North pole. Then there are the greenhouse gas effects that already are cooling the stratosphere. This part seems the weakest in part because I've not studied this regional effect. But worse, 'back of the envelope' does not make sense:

• water is ~800 times denser than air
• for air for force the Gulf Stream north, it would have to be nearly constant at near hurricane speeds

This is where physics and math depart from my understanding of this paper. No, this paper is more about a slight reduction may happen if the Sun follows a straight-line projection of future activity. But the part about a cold or cooler North Atlantic regional effect, well that is a bridge too far.

Bob Wilson

 

I was reading a lay report, a news article about the paper, and was bothered by:

“In cycle 26, the two waves exactly mirror each other, peaking at the same time but in opposite hemispheres of the Sun. We predict that this will lead to the properties of a Maunder Minimum,” Prof Zharkova said at National Astronomy Meeting in the Welsh town of Llandudno.
. . .
Scientists first realised solar activity followed a 10- to 12-year cycle in the mid-1800s, but Prof Zharkova said a new “double dynamo” model of the solar cycle had enabled scientists to predict the cycles with 97 percent accuracy.

"We found magnetic wave components appearing in pairs, originating in two different layers in the Sun's interior," she said.

"Over the cycle, the waves fluctuate between the northern and southern hemispheres of the Sun."​

Read more at New solar cycle research suggests 60 percent drop in sunspots in 2030 - 9news.com.au

The news articles postulate two cycles with independent frequencies that can in effect, have a beat-frequency. I'm having trouble with this being 'new' as such analysis was fully mastered in the late 1800s. IMHO, it is a little late to claim discover this mechanism. Still, there is a lot about the Sun we don't know.

Then I noticed this disclaimer,"A previous version of this article suggested Prof Zharkova was directly predicting a mini-Ice Age. This has been amended." Good it was corrected.

Worse for deniers who adopt this paper, the last three cycles in the satellite era show a decreasing period amplitude while in contrast, world-wide metrics indicate we seeing substantial heat gains. Satellites show Solar radiance base at 1360.6 W/m{2} and sun spots are associated with slight increases, ~3/1360 ~= 0.22%, over part of an 11-12 year period, ~0.11%, . . . three cycles ago, 1977-1987.

I won't be going out of my way to get a copy of this paper as I've got another book coming,"Descriptive Physical Oceanography An Introduction" Talley, Lynne, Pickard George, Emery, William, and Swift, James, Elsevier, New York, 2011. I already have the ebook but I find these more usable for reference. To study, I still prefer paper yet I've already learned more about currents seen in the sea surface temperatures. For example, the Faulkland shoals appears to source that local hot spot off the coast of Argentina.

Bob Wilson