Wow, all it took was 0.3 degrees to freeze over the Thames.
How would a Solar Grand Minimum affect global warming?
Posted on 16 June 2011 by John Cook
Solar physicists have issued a prediction that the sun may be entering a period of unusually low activity called a grand minimum. This has climate skeptics speculating that solar ‘hibernation’ may be our get-out-of-jail-free card, cancelling out any global warming from our CO2 emissions. However, peer-reviewed research has examined this very scenario, “On the effect of a new grand minimum of solar activity on the future climate on Earth” (Feulner & Rahmstorf 2010). What they found was even if the sun fell into a grand minimum, global temperature would be diminished by no more than 0.3°C. The sun is not our get-out-of-jail-free card.
Most skeptics assert that warming from CO2 is unlikely to be significant in the first place; there’s no “get out of jail free” claim at all.
One thing is for sure: Cook will continue to build strawmen regardless of what effect the Sun has.
Cook did not do well in history. History tells us a whole lot about what happens during Grand Minimum and the models are based on biased inputs that have little basis in reality.
In the natural world it’s detrimental, for long term survival, when a creature misinterprets the motives of another. That means when translated, Steve, that Cook is not one bit terrified, at least in the way you think
Why is no one aware of the fact that the sun entered a sunspot minimum as of 2002; but the temperatures remained flat? That means, had the sun stayed dead even, those temps (2002-Present) would have gone up slightly.
You can d**y that all you wish but please tell me? How much of a temperature variance does the sun have in contrast to the increase in temperature from 1979 to the present, according to Roy Spencer’s UAH chart? No quantification?
Last, but not least, the little ice age lasted hundreds of years without needing the effects of the Maunder Minimum to create it. The effect of the Maunder Minimum on the Little Ice Age simply made the temperatures a bit lower. .3C in addition to the Little Ice Age, was like the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. In other words, the Thames was almost ready to freeze before the MM came along.
Now for some real chilling news 😮
“For both the A1B and A2 emission scenario, the effect of a Maunder Minimum on global temperature is minimal. The most likely impact of a Maunder Minimum by 2100 would be a decrease in global temperature of 0.1°C with a maximum reduction of warming by 0.3°C. Compare this to global warming between 3.7°C (A1B scenario) to 4.5°C (A2 scenario).”
No Virginia, there is no ice age. Yes Steve, John is scared, but not by what you suppose.
Scared of his shadow.
Of course the sun has no effect on climate … it has to be CO2 … just like in this video:
P.S. Ever heard of a lag time, Ill wind? The oceans are simply releasing the heat now that they absorbed over the last several decades of maximum solar output. Just like a fully loaded truck doesn’t stop on a dime, the Earth doesn’t start cooling immediately once solar output slows down.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYLmLW4k4aI
“However, peer-reviewed research has examined this very scenario, “On the effect of a new grand minimum of solar activity on the future climate on Earth” (Feulner & Rahmstorf 2010). What they found was even if the sun fell into a grand minimum, global temperature would be diminished by no more than 0.3°C.”
@Ill Wind … Here is what Henrik Svensmark said about the above paper:
“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.”
P.S. “We known with good confidence that the terrestrial response to the solar signal is 3-7 times larger than from solar irradiance alone”
If you take that to its logical conclusion, you get 0.3C x 3 = 0.9C or 0.3C x 7 = 2.1C … that is, 1-2C of cooling. The consequences of that would be devestating. Just begin with wheat production in Canada, USA, and Russia. Can you say, “food riots”?
??
Sunspot frequency started declining around 2002; it didn’t reach a minimum until about 2009.
I can’t parse the next paragraph. (Slow down!)
I’m pleased to see you’re not giving yourself any wiggleroom. I like someone who can say, “I’ve chosen my limb and that’s where I’m staying!”
Steve; how many more years until you reach old age?
I’m already there.
Alarmists are in love with the 1979 start date. The three consecutive winters of 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1978-79 were all brutal winters, probably the three coldest consecutive winters in recorded history for much of North America and Europe. It isn’t proving much to say that there has been some rebound from record cold.
Also, how do you explain mile thick Ice Sheets down to present day Chicago and NYC 15,000 years ago if the sun is unimportant compared to man? There have been huge climate changes in the past, long before the Industrial Revolution.
the antiscientific attitude of Aristotelian Cook and his ilk is demonstrated by their curiously uncurious attitude. They keep stating that, whatever happens, they knew it already. They simply cannot and will not notice, let alone acknowledge the existence of any new phenomenon.
There is no scientific field where that happens. Astrology and homeopathy spring to mind.
Here’s what Svensmark said about this….
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.
http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com/2011/06/solar-minimum-and-its-affect-on-climate.html
He left out a lot of recent published research:
New paper explains how climate is ‘unusually sensitive’ to solar and lunar cycles
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/06/new-paper-explains-how-climate-is.html
New paper shows global warming since 1950 was due to the Sun
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/06/new-paper-shows-global-warming-since.html
Study finds global warming over past 4 centuries was due to increased solar activity
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/06/study-finds-global-warming-over-past-4.html
This link below has a number of entries about undeniable solar influence
http://www.c3headlines.com/sunsolarcosmicoscillationorbital-cycles/
Cook is being highly selective and it is a well known AGW believing scientist Stephan Rahmstorf he tabbed for his blog entry.Not a very credible source.
Bedwetters are always terrified.
Cook did a guest blog at JR’s site and badmouthed geologists who might benefit from “commerical exploitation” of fossil fuels suggesting they were biased regarding AGW. What was funny though was how sophmoric his writing was. Right out of the box he indicts himself as someone who is benefitting from “commercial exploitation” by open his article with, “I was headed to the Sydney ABC studio to talk about my new book on climate change denial.” Well done John! Brilliant! LOL
I mentioned the pot/kettle and stones in glass houses aspect of Cook’s blindness to his self-indulging hipocrissy and admission of “commercial exploitation” in a very nice way but it never saw the light of day at “non-think regress”. It’s funny how a not that smart unemployed physicist has been embraced by acedemic elites who are trying to elevate Cook’s web site to pantheon status (Scott Mandia pushes his students to use Cook’s site for example). Cook is nothing more than a neo-televangelist making money peddling his newly created religion to those inhappy with traditional religion. Fortunately for Cook, God has provided an almost unlimited supply of illogical fools with no direction and looking for a cause.