Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

Mini ice age, 2030? Double Dynamo

slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 10:32:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
http://www.sciencedaily.com...

A new model of the Sun's solar cycle is producing unprecedentedly accurate predictions of irregularities within the Sun's 11-year heartbeat. The model draws on dynamo effects in two layers of the Sun, one close to the surface and one deep within its convection zone. Predictions from the model suggest that solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s to conditions last seen during the 'mini ice age' that began in 1645.

Results will be presented today by Prof Valentina Zharkova at the National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno.

It is 172 years since a scientist first spotted that the Sun's activity varies over a cycle lasting around 10 to 12 years. But every cycle is a little different and none of the models of causes to date have fully explained fluctuations. Many solar physicists have put the cause of the solar cycle down to a dynamo caused by convecting fluid deep within the Sun. Now, Zharkova and her colleagues have found that adding a second dynamo, close to the surface, completes the picture with surprising accuracy.

"We found magnetic wave components appearing in pairs, originating in two different layers in the Sun's interior. They both have a frequency of approximately 11 years, although this frequency is slightly different, and they are offset in time. Over the cycle, the waves fluctuate between the northern and southern hemispheres of the Sun. Combining both waves together and comparing to real data for the current solar cycle, we found that our predictions showed an accuracy of 97%," said Zharkova.

Zharkova and her colleagues derived their model using a technique called 'principal component analysis' of the magnetic field observations from the Wilcox Solar Observatory in California. They examined three solar cycles-worth of magnetic field activity, covering the period from 1976-2008. In addition, they compared their predictions to average sunspot numbers, another strong marker of solar activity. All the predictions and observations were closely matched.

Looking ahead to the next solar cycles, the model predicts that the pair of waves become increasingly offset during Cycle 25, which peaks in 2022. During Cycle 26, which covers the decade from 2030-2040, the two waves will become exactly out of synch and this will cause a significant reduction in solar activity.

"In cycle 26, the two waves exactly mirror each other -- peaking at the same time but in opposite hemispheres of the Sun. Their interaction will be disruptive, or they will nearly cancel each other. We predict that this will lead to the properties of a 'Maunder minimum'," said Zharkova. "Effectively, when the waves are approximately in phase, they can show strong interaction, or resonance, and we have strong solar activity. When they are out of phase, we have solar minimums. When there is full phase separation, we have the conditions last seen during the Maunder minimum, 370 years ago."
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 10:38:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
If this ends up the case, we need to put more carbon in the atmosphere. Global warming deniers, please don't use this as an argument as to why burning fossil fuels is not bad for the planet.

It does highlight that there is much more going on with the Sun than what we understand. If we could have a level of comfort with predicting this cycle, it then gives us a little more comfort to start influencing the earth climate. We have long way to go to have comfort not killing us off by intentionally altering climate to combat natural forces such as sun activity. That is a whole different discussion.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 10:41:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/14/2015 10:38:03 AM, slo1 wrote:
If this ends up the case, we need to put more carbon in the atmosphere. Global warming deniers, please don't use this as an argument as to why burning fossil fuels is not bad for the planet.

It does highlight that there is much more going on with the Sun than what we understand. If we could have a level of comfort with predicting this cycle, it then gives us a little more comfort to start influencing the earth climate. We have long way to go to have comfort not killing us off by intentionally altering climate to combat natural forces such as sun activity. That is a whole different discussion.

If we do that, how will we recover from the excess CO2 in the atmosphere 20-30 years from now when the the energy from the sun destabilizes? Wouldn't this approach risk great long-term problems for a short-term gain?
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 10:48:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/14/2015 10:41:18 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/14/2015 10:38:03 AM, slo1 wrote:
If this ends up the case, we need to put more carbon in the atmosphere. Global warming deniers, please don't use this as an argument as to why burning fossil fuels is not bad for the planet.

It does highlight that there is much more going on with the Sun than what we understand. If we could have a level of comfort with predicting this cycle, it then gives us a little more comfort to start influencing the earth climate. We have long way to go to have comfort not killing us off by intentionally altering climate to combat natural forces such as sun activity. That is a whole different discussion.

If we do that, how will we recover from the excess CO2 in the atmosphere 20-30 years from now when the the energy from the sun destabilizes? Wouldn't this approach risk great long-term problems for a short-term gain?

That is definitely a risk. The bad news with a mini ice age is that is it even greater disruption to humans than global warming due to reduced food production. The estimates of the population decline the last mini ice age is astounding. I'll have to look it up.

Maybe it buys enough time to get more efficient CO2 scrubbers? You are right though, as soon as we think we can control climate, we will really jack things up.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 10:53:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/14/2015 10:48:37 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/14/2015 10:41:18 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/14/2015 10:38:03 AM, slo1 wrote:
If this ends up the case, we need to put more carbon in the atmosphere. Global warming deniers, please don't use this as an argument as to why burning fossil fuels is not bad for the planet.

It does highlight that there is much more going on with the Sun than what we understand. If we could have a level of comfort with predicting this cycle, it then gives us a little more comfort to start influencing the earth climate. We have long way to go to have comfort not killing us off by intentionally altering climate to combat natural forces such as sun activity. That is a whole different discussion.

If we do that, how will we recover from the excess CO2 in the atmosphere 20-30 years from now when the the energy from the sun destabilizes? Wouldn't this approach risk great long-term problems for a short-term gain?

That is definitely a risk. The bad news with a mini ice age is that is it even greater disruption to humans than global warming due to reduced food production. The estimates of the population decline the last mini ice age is astounding. I'll have to look it up.

Maybe it buys enough time to get more efficient CO2 scrubbers? You are right though, as soon as we think we can control climate, we will really jack things up.

Yeah. The mini ice-age is a relatively short phenomenon, so I don't think it would make sense to pump CO2 into the atmosphere if we didn't have a way to take it back out, safely.

That being said, I'm not sure I could offer a meaningful solution. I doubt I could do any more than speculate from an uninformed position, and I don't think that's valuable.
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 4:40:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I doubt I could do any more than speculate from an uninformed position, and I don't think that's valuable.

That is what the internet is for, friend.
dee-em
Posts: 6,451
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 8:23:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/14/2015 10:53:25 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:

That being said, I'm not sure I could offer a meaningful solution. I doubt I could do any more than speculate from an uninformed position, and I don't think that's valuable.

It's really quite simple. Put Skyangel in charge of all science. According to her it's all science-fiction. Therefore we can do nothing and the problem will just go away. The source of problems is problems. Bwa hah hah.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 10:13:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/15/2015 8:23:41 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/14/2015 10:53:25 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:

That being said, I'm not sure I could offer a meaningful solution. I doubt I could do any more than speculate from an uninformed position, and I don't think that's valuable.

It's really quite simple. Put Skyangel in charge of all science. According to her it's all science-fiction. Therefore we can do nothing and the problem will just go away. The source of problems is problems. Bwa hah hah.

That would be a disaster. What if I said she should be in charge of your job? You wouldn't be happy either. No thanks, she wouldn't be able to oversee my work, but maybe she'll be able to benefit on my work in cognitive enhancement, if I can come up with a good brain-computer interface for it. A system which would bring her up to average levels of intelligence would be incredible... about equal to making a monkey who can do calculus.

"The source of problems is problems." LOL
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 10:15:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/14/2015 4:40:13 PM, kp98 wrote:
I doubt I could do any more than speculate from an uninformed position, and I don't think that's valuable.

That is what the internet is for, friend.

haha. Still, I prefer to abstain from spending my time that way.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 10:55:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Solar cycles and the impact of solar activity on climate change have been considered for decades. For example, this 2010 study concludes that cooling due to "a new Maunder-type solar activity minimum cannot offset the global warming caused by human greenhouse gas emissions." [http://www.pik-potsdam.de...] Predictions of a new solar minimum in 30 years are nothing new. It's misleading to suggest that Zharkova's model suggests a mini-ice age corresponding with a new Maunder-like minimum when she only considers cooling due to solar activity, not warming due to greenhouse gas emissions.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 11:36:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/15/2015 8:23:41 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/14/2015 10:53:25 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:

That being said, I'm not sure I could offer a meaningful solution. I doubt I could do any more than speculate from an uninformed position, and I don't think that's valuable.

It's really quite simple. Put Skyangel in charge of all science. According to her it's all science-fiction. Therefore we can do nothing and the problem will just go away. The source of problems is problems. Bwa hah hah.

Sky angel would say that Problems are both problems and not problems. They are two sides of the same coin. A warming climate is an illusion. temperature is molded by our perceptions only and thus the climate is not warming it is really cooling. Now, let me wrap myself in this Parker in this 110 degree heatwave...
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 8:12:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/15/2015 10:55:26 AM, Enji wrote:
Solar cycles and the impact of solar activity on climate change have been considered for decades. For example, this 2010 study concludes that cooling due to "a new Maunder-type solar activity minimum cannot offset the global warming caused by human greenhouse gas emissions." [http://www.pik-potsdam.de...] Predictions of a new solar minimum in 30 years are nothing new. It's misleading to suggest that Zharkova's model suggests a mini-ice age corresponding with a new Maunder-like minimum when she only considers cooling due to solar activity, not warming due to greenhouse gas emissions.

Enji, he study you point out assumes a 25% reduction of luminosity from the sun from 1950, which we are already X% into. The Double Dynomo predicts a 60% decline and to date has been 97% accurate. I'm not stating that it is certain, but it is certainly something to watch. Our understanding of climate change has tremendous opportunities for growth.

I stand by the premise that putting obscene amounts of carbon in the atmosphere due to industrial and transportation active is not a good thing, but we can't error on the side of global cooling denial as we all know the earth warms and cools as a result of natural activity as well as human activity.
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 8:21:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/15/2015 8:12:38 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/15/2015 10:55:26 AM, Enji wrote:
Solar cycles and the impact of solar activity on climate change have been considered for decades. For example, this 2010 study concludes that cooling due to "a new Maunder-type solar activity minimum cannot offset the global warming caused by human greenhouse gas emissions." [http://www.pik-potsdam.de...] Predictions of a new solar minimum in 30 years are nothing new. It's misleading to suggest that Zharkova's model suggests a mini-ice age corresponding with a new Maunder-like minimum when she only considers cooling due to solar activity, not warming due to greenhouse gas emissions.

Enji, he study you point out assumes a 25% reduction of luminosity from the sun from 1950, which we are already X% into. The Double Dynomo predicts a 60% decline and to date has been 97% accurate. I'm not stating that it is certain, but it is certainly something to watch. Our understanding of climate change has tremendous opportunities for growth.

I stand by the premise that putting obscene amounts of carbon in the atmosphere due to industrial and transportation active is not a good thing, but we can't error on the side of global cooling denial as we all know the earth warms and cools as a result of natural activity as well as human activity.

I should correct above. This double dynomo suggests 60% decline in solar activity such as flares and spots. I'm not certain what that would relate to the posted study which deals with total irradiance.
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 8:23:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I should also correct that the posted study used a .25% reduction of solar irradiance, not 25%. I'll have to research what reduction the double dynamo predicts in total sun radiation.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 9:49:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/15/2015 8:21:33 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/15/2015 8:12:38 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/15/2015 10:55:26 AM, Enji wrote:
Solar cycles and the impact of solar activity on climate change have been considered for decades. For example, this 2010 study concludes that cooling due to "a new Maunder-type solar activity minimum cannot offset the global warming caused by human greenhouse gas emissions." [http://www.pik-potsdam.de...] Predictions of a new solar minimum in 30 years are nothing new. It's misleading to suggest that Zharkova's model suggests a mini-ice age corresponding with a new Maunder-like minimum when she only considers cooling due to solar activity, not warming due to greenhouse gas emissions.

Enji, he study you point out assumes a 25% reduction of luminosity from the sun from 1950, which we are already X% into. The Double Dynomo predicts a 60% decline and to date has been 97% accurate. I'm not stating that it is certain, but it is certainly something to watch. Our understanding of climate change has tremendous opportunities for growth.

I stand by the premise that putting obscene amounts of carbon in the atmosphere due to industrial and transportation active is not a good thing, but we can't error on the side of global cooling denial as we all know the earth warms and cools as a result of natural activity as well as human activity.

I should correct above. This double dynomo suggests 60% decline in solar activity such as flares and spots. I'm not certain what that would relate to the posted study which deals with total irradiance.

Glad that you caught that -- yes they're using different terms to discuss changes in solar activity. Zharkova predicts solar conditions similar to the Maunder-minimum. I don't know whether she makes specific predictions on decrease in TSI, however the range used in the study I cited is based on reconstructions of TSI during the previous Maunder-minimum, so it should accurately reflect conditions of a new Maunder-type solar minimum.
dee-em
Posts: 6,451
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 8:47:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/15/2015 10:55:26 AM, Enji wrote:
Solar cycles and the impact of solar activity on climate change have been considered for decades. For example, this 2010 study concludes that cooling due to "a new Maunder-type solar activity minimum cannot offset the global warming caused by human greenhouse gas emissions." [http://www.pik-potsdam.de...] Predictions of a new solar minimum in 30 years are nothing new. It's misleading to suggest that Zharkova's model suggests a mini-ice age corresponding with a new Maunder-like minimum when she only considers cooling due to solar activity, not warming due to greenhouse gas emissions.

Bad Astronomer has analyzed this issue and the conclusion seems to be that the "mini ice-age" scenario may be a little premature:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com...

So, to wrap things up in a nice little bow:

1) Claims of an imminent global ice age are at best exaggerated.

2) The link of global cooling to an extended solar magnetic minimum is tenuous, and almost certainly needs something else to force it to occur (like lots of volcanoes), and

3) We"re not even all that sure we"re headed for an extended minimum.

I know a lot of folks tend to panic, and a lot of so-called "news" outlets know that disasters sell ad space. So there you go. No need to panic yet over global cooling. And we"ve still got warming deniers to deal with.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 10:42:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/16/2015 8:47:52 AM, dee-em wrote:
Bad Astronomer has analyzed this issue and the conclusion seems to be that the "mini ice-age" scenario may be a little premature:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com...

So, to wrap things up in a nice little bow:

1) Claims of an imminent global ice age are at best exaggerated.

2) The link of global cooling to an extended solar magnetic minimum is tenuous, and almost certainly needs something else to force it to occur (like lots of volcanoes), and

3) We"re not even all that sure we"re headed for an extended minimum.

I know a lot of folks tend to panic, and a lot of so-called "news" outlets know that disasters sell ad space. So there you go. No need to panic yet over global cooling. And we"ve still got warming deniers to deal with.


The "mini ice-age" headline actually comes from journalists themselves, not the researchers; Zharkova apparently didn't cover the impact her team's research had on climate change in the presentation. It's good that many writers have caught on to the misleading, sensationalised headlines and are pointing out that they're not accurate.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 10:42:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/16/2015 8:47:52 AM, dee-em wrote:
Bad Astronomer has analyzed this issue and the conclusion seems to be that the "mini ice-age" scenario may be a little premature:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com...

So, to wrap things up in a nice little bow:

1) Claims of an imminent global ice age are at best exaggerated.

2) The link of global cooling to an extended solar magnetic minimum is tenuous, and almost certainly needs something else to force it to occur (like lots of volcanoes), and

3) We"re not even all that sure we"re headed for an extended minimum.

I know a lot of folks tend to panic, and a lot of so-called "news" outlets know that disasters sell ad space. So there you go. No need to panic yet over global cooling. And we"ve still got warming deniers to deal with.


The "mini ice-age" headline actually comes from journalists themselves, not the researchers; Zharkova apparently didn't cover the impact her team's research had on climate change in the presentation. It's good that many writers have caught on to the misleading, sensationalised headlines and are pointing out that they're not accurate.