Dr. Henrik Svensmark, originator of the theory of cosmoclimatology, comments on a paper the warmist media is claiming refutes the significance of the major lull in solar activity upon the climate, from ABC newswatch:
ABC belatedly reported (borrowing from AFP) on a study that suggests the sun is entering a quiet period similar to the Maunder Minimum, which was a 70-year period when hardly any sunspots were observed between 1645 and 1715, a period known as the 'Little Ice Age'. ABC's report provided reference to a recent study by Georg Feulner and Stefan Rahmstorf based on the results of climate modelling that indicated the potential affect on global temperatures may not be significant with just "a 0.3°C dip by 2100 compared to normal solar fluctuations."
In the interests of balance (lacking in the ABC's report) we decided to ask a real solar scientist. It seems the impact of reduced solar activity may be more significant than the ABC's one sided report suggesting more research is required.
Email sent 15/6/2011
Dear Dr Svensmark,
ABC News cite a paper by Georg Feulner and Stefan Rahmstorf to suggest that a solar mimnimum would reduce global temperatures by 0.3 degrees by 2100. see GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 37, L05707, 5 PP., 2010 doi:10.1029/2010GL042710 On the effect of a new grand minimum of solar activity on the future climate on Earth"Here we use a coupled climate model to explore the effect of a 21st-century grand minimum on future global temperatures, finding a moderate temperature offset of no more than −0.3°C in the year 2100 relative to a scenario with solar activity similar to recent decades. This temperature decrease is much smaller than the warming expected from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by the end of the century. "
I am interested in your opinion on the evidence for a future solar minimum based on recent results in the news and its affect on global temperature for a news story.
Marc Hendrickx ABC NEWS WATCH
Dear Marc Hendrickx,
I have had a fast look at the paper, and as far as I can see the authors are only looking at solar irradiance changes, and effects like the one that I have been involved in, like an amplification of the solar signal caused by clouds and cosmic ray modulation, is not taken into account. We known with good confidence that the terrestrial response to the solar signal is 3-7 times larger than from solar irradiance alone (see for example the work of Nir Shaviv, attached-Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcing-doi:10.1029/2007JA012989). Now if such effects are taken into account the result would be very different (larger solar influence). So I do not think that the present work is the particular helpful in understanding the solar impact in near future. It is only an estimate of the impact of solar irradiance as determined from numerical modeling. In the coming years the sun will show by itself how important it is.
Best wishes, Henrik (Svensmark)
First I want to say mainstream solar scientist finally admitted, they were wrong about future solar activity today.ReplyDelete
This in contrast to the likes of Piers Corbyn,David Archibald ,Geoffrey Sharp ,to name a few, that have been calling for a prolong solar minimum since 2006 or 2007, and believe strongly in global cooling as a result.
PREMISE: The prolong solar minimum causes earth's AO circulation to become more negative, then it would be otherwise ,due to ozone distribution and concentration changes in the atmosphere as a result in solar UV light changes. This in turn, causes more clouds, and precipitation, and snow cover in the N.H., causing earth's overall albedo to eventually increase ,and thus lower overall temperatures in the N.H. and redistribute the temperatures.
The decline in solar irradiance itself , probably only causes minor temperature changes in a given period of time, say on the order of .3 to .4 degrees Fahrenheit.
Albedo changes in contrast ,can cause a large change in temperature. In fact a 1% change in albedo, causes the temperature to increase or decrease by 2F.
1. Does a -AO increase earth's albedo? If so by how much?
2. Is a more -AO ,associated with a prolong solar minimum? Past history answers this second question with a yes.
1. CO2 has a .1F to maybe a .2F per decade increase in temperature ,without any positive feedbacks. Based in large part, on Beer's Law.
Past history suggest no positive feedbacks have materialized as a result of an increase in CO2.
2. Earth without clouds would have an albedo of 15% in contrast to 31%. Earth's albedo without clouds and snow cover would probably be about 10%.
Earth's average cloud cover is about 59%. This means each 1% change in cloud cover, equates to a .3% change in earth's albedo.
3. With the sun setting the tables, by how much will an increase in cloud cover,precipitation,snow cover,SO2 ,via a more negative AO/NAO,increase of cosmic rays,a more positive SOI,a cold PDO/AMO,an increase in volcanic activity, increase earth's albedo?
4. Volcanic activity, thru an increase in SO2 causes more incoming sunlight to be reflected back into space,lowering earth's temperature. Same principle as albedo.
Does an increase in volcanic activity , equate to a prolong solar minimum with spurts of activity from time to time? Past history suggest it does.
In summary,a prolong solar minimum provides evidence that it can have an effect on earth's albedo, thru causing more clouds,greater snow cover,increase in SO2, and greater precipitation, due to the items that control the climate mentioned in NOTE 3, phasing into a cold mode, which results in the above. Degree of magnitude and the duration of the phase in being very important, to the evenual result.
Finally this decade based on this discussion , I believe will be one of low solar activity,with that result being colder temperatures and an increase in geological activity. This is going to be a decade to remember!
Thanks for your interesting comments. You may be interested in this paper on changes in cloud albedo over the past few decades:ReplyDelete
How can any scientist seriously start messing with the way we live if they cannot be consistent in understanding their own data!! Fools and fools!!ReplyDelete
how can anyone take any scientist seriously who states....ReplyDelete
>>Here we use a coupled climate model to explore the effect of a 21st->>century grand minimum on future global temperatures..
Richard Feynman is turning in his grave, god bless him
This is all very common sense, but what more do we need to know than that the MMGW crowd have LIED about and MANIPULATED data? They aren't worthy of the time spent refuting their nonsense.ReplyDelete