About extreme weather

The percent changes in the solar power received through the solar cycle variations, are the same, whether 36 million miles (Mercury) or 3600 million miles (Pluto) away.

Where were you hiding out the past two decades? I remember a lot of talk about this, especially in the first decade of this century, when it got far more press and debate coverage than now. Debate about this particular element faded considerably after it was demonstrated that there just isn't anywhere near enough "there" there to account for all of what is happening. Here is a sample illustration, with solar effects being the next-to-last (though not smallest) bar in the chart:

 

Published yesterday

One is bad enough: climate change raises the | EurekAlert!

 

In figure posted by @fuzzy1 there is little difference in solar radiance throughout 11-yr solar cycle. In visible light. UV varies much more and it is there that people are still searching for a causal mechanism.

Meanwhile, and it may be unnecessary to post again, Surface air temperature averages continue to increase, quite linearly, decade after decade, since about 1970. That time covers almost 5 solar cycles that have varied quite a lot. As such things go.

 

And in total radiant energy too, not just the visible portion.

I haven't followed this portion so well, so will have to keep eyes open.

But this certainly isn't a never-mentioned topic, at least in the technical press.

 

iirc - the solar North /South Poles will jump again in around 2 years - so if we get a massive plasma burst (as is often the case), & it ejects right into our orbital path - things could get really really interesting
.

 

Zharkova 2020 (linked above, hereafter Z20) makes several assertions or predictions. Some of those can be examined with data already in hand.


But I start with extreme events because it is thread topic. During the Maunder Minimum (1645-1710, MM) there were large-scale droughts (combinations of low precipitation and high temperature) in several regions. That may not be what one expects during a ‘big chill’ on Earth, but they happened. Where causality has been invoked, the culprit most often mentioned was ENSO cycle. Droughts and ENSO were not discussed in Z20.


Also not discussed were several large volcanic eruptions that may have played a role in cooling during MM. I would certainly have appreciated a discussion of different forcing by CO2, which was <300 ppm during MM), and will be >400 and probably approaching 500 ppm during future solar minimum predicted by Z20. So even charitably we cannot see it as a comprehensive examination of climate and possible causative factors during MM.


Sunspots were very few or absent then, that is certain. Causal factors proposed are 3 watts/m2 less solar input (visible light) during MM. It may have been that large. Others might suggest 2 watts/m2 less, but in any case it was reduced.


Z20 also proposed that less UV input could have reduced stratospheric ozone during MM. That could have happened, but strato-UV is also strongly affected by (large-enough) volcanoes that cause ozone loss. So, it seems tentative to focus only on the formation side. In recent decades strato-UV has been measured directly, and it has increased through time through solar minima and maxima. I stress that is not quite a fair comparison, because CFCs in stratosphere have been decreasing during the ‘satellite measurement era’ and they are excellent destroyers of strato-UV. But it highlights that fuller accounting needs to be done here as well.


Z20 also proposed that solar magnetosphere around Earth would have been weaker during MM (almost certainly true), and thus more galactic cosmic rays would have impinged. Those bad boys produce carbon-14 and beryllium-10 isotopes here, and their decay rates allow accurate time series of production. There were not large reductions in production of those isotopes during MM, which weakens that claim of causality.


MM was 6 solar cycles long. Z20 suggests that an upcoming solar minimum will be 3 cycles long. As Z20 says both are caused by the same tightly periodic process, I am troubled that 6 does not equal 3.


Solar cycle 24 was smallest of the most recent several; this agreed with Z20 model, and with other predictions. Solar cycle 25 so far is looking stronger. It even exceeds most ‘mainstream’ predictions, and certainly opposes Z20 prediction.


==

It would be wrong to reject Z20 predictions simply because they disagree with mainstream climate science and solar physics. Predictions are best if they match observations; That’s the whole story. Z20 so far is not leading the pack.