• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are We Headed to a New Solar Minimum?

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,822
Reaction score
28,238
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Recognition of the climate importance of the Sun and GCR's continues to grow. This new paper suggests advocates of AGW orthodoxy may have to make some concessions.

Are we headed for a new solar minimum?

Posted on June 27, 2016 | 92 comments
by Judith Curry
We can conclude that the evidence provided is sufficient to justify a complete updating and reviewing of present climate models to better consider these detected natural recurrences and lags in solar processes. – Jorge Sánchez-Sesma

Continue reading

In pondering how the climate of the 21st century will play out, solar variability has generally been dismissed as an important factor by the proponents of AGW. However, I think that it is important that scenarios of future solar variability and their potential impacts on climate should by considered in scenarios of future climate change.
I have been cursorily following the literature on this topic. I have recently been in communication with Jorge Sanchez-Sesma. He has new paper that was just accepted for publication in Earth System Dynamics, an interactive open-access journal published by the EGU. I am featuring this paper in a post since it provides important new analysis and insights on this topic, and also provides a useful assessment of the literature and current state of knowledge on this topic.
The significance of this paper is reflected in the EGU metrics link that indicates that this paper has been downloaded 1531 times so far (before it has been formally published).
Evidence of cosmic recurrent and lagged millennia-scale patterns and consequent forecasts: multi-scale responses of solar activity to planetary gravitational forcing [link]
Jorge Sánchez-Sesma

Abstract. Solar activity (SA) oscillations over the past millennia are analyzed and extrapolated based on reconstructed solar-related records. Here, simple recurrent models of SA signal are applied and tested. The consequent results strongly suggest the following: (a) the existence of multi-millennial (9500-year) scale solar patterns linked with planetary gravitational forcing (PGF), and (b) their persistence, over at least the last glacial– interglacial cycle, but possibly since the Miocene (10.5 Ma). This empirical modeling of solar recurrent patterns has also provided a consequent multi-millennial-scale experimental forecast, suggesting a solar decreasing trend toward Grand (Super) Minimum conditions for the upcoming period, AD2050–2250 (AD 3750–4450). Taking into account the importance of these estimated SA scenarios, a comparison is made with other SA forecasts. In Appendixes A and B, we provide further verification, testing and analysis of solar recurrent patterns since geological eras, and their potential gravitational forcing. . . .
 

Threegoofs

COVID survivor
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
55,308
Reaction score
20,660
Location
The birthplace of Italian Beef
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I swear- this thread title recurs every year.

Those deniers...always predicting the future.
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
32,625
Reaction score
10,539
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The Ice Core records clearly show that the sun spends about 70 to 80% of it's time in a low cycle,
I hope this is not a sign we are entering one.
Global cooling would be much worse than global warming.
The findings will quickly be downplayed, as they do not lead to the overall goal of the alarmist, control and taxation!
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
82,598
Reaction score
37,176
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I swear- this thread title recurs every year.

Those deniers...always predicting the future.

I was gonna say I swear to god we had this exact thread already.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
82,598
Reaction score
37,176
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The Ice Core records clearly show that the sun spends about 70 to 80% of it's time in a low cycle,
I hope this is not a sign we are entering one.
Global cooling would be much worse than global warming.
The findings will quickly be downplayed, as they do not lead to the overall goal of the alarmist, control and taxation!

Reduced solar forcing merely extends the global warming issue to a later date. (and probably makes it worse)
 

Celebrity

DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2016
Messages
5,257
Reaction score
761
Location
VT, USA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Reduced solar forcing merely extends the global warming issue to a later date. (and probably makes it worse)

I agree, a static temperature would be much more stable than cooling or warming. Further warming would decelerate future global warming. It's difficult to think of a global scale thermodynamic system in a solar system. I think that's why climate change is an issue of much debate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics

Newton's Law of Cooling (Theory) : Heat & Thermodynamics Virtual Lab : Physical Sciences : Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham Virtual Lab
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
82,598
Reaction score
37,176
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I agree, a static temperature would be much more stable than cooling or warming. Further warming would decelerate future global warming. It's difficult to think of a global scale thermodynamic system in a solar system. I think that's why climate change is an issue of much debate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics

Newton's Law of Cooling (Theory) : Heat & Thermodynamics Virtual Lab : Physical Sciences : Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham Virtual Lab

For the last 50 years or so we've seen solar output stable (it has that 11-year oscillation but the overall trend was flat), but temperatures increased.
More recently, solar output declined and temperatures flatlined.

The issue I anticipate is that if solar forcing continues to decline, temperatures will remain flat or even decrease despite the increased forcing from ever-increasing CO2 levels. The right-wingers will use this as PROOF THOSE SILLY ALARMISTS WERE WRONG ALL ALONG, but the forcing from CO2 doesn't just disappear. It keeps growing as CO2 levels grow. And humanity is absolutely dumb enough to not bother doing anything about carbon emissions. Even if it is a problem, it wont come bite us in the ass for a century, or more, and I have an election to win next year.

Eventually, solar cycles come back around. Solar output will come back up to the levels of the recent peak. Only now CO2 levels are, what? 600ppm? 700? 1000?

It'll be too late to fix the problem by then.
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
32,625
Reaction score
10,539
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Reduced solar forcing merely extends the global warming issue to a later date. (and probably makes it worse)
How do you figure that?
If the total energy into the system drops, well the total energy into the system drops.
Atmospheric chemistry, may alter the balance of energy, but it cannot create energy!
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
82,598
Reaction score
37,176
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
How do you figure that?
If the total energy into the system drops, well the total energy into the system drops.
Atmospheric chemistry, may alter the balance of energy, but it cannot create energy!

Cycles come back around because that's how cycles work.

CO2 levels will be higher when that happens.
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
32,625
Reaction score
10,539
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
For the last 50 years or so we've seen solar output stable (it has that 11-year oscillation but the overall trend was flat), but temperatures increased.
More recently, solar output declined and temperatures flatlined.

The issue I anticipate is that if solar forcing continues to decline, temperatures will remain flat or even decrease despite the increased forcing from ever-increasing CO2 levels. The right-wingers will use this as PROOF THOSE SILLY ALARMISTS WERE WRONG ALL ALONG, but the forcing from CO2 doesn't just disappear. It keeps growing as CO2 levels grow. And humanity is absolutely dumb enough to not bother doing anything about carbon emissions. Even if it is a problem, it wont come bite us in the ass for a century, or more, and I have an election to win next year.

Eventually, solar cycles come back around. Solar output will come back up to the levels of the recent peak. Only now CO2 levels are, what? 600ppm? 700? 1000?

It'll be too late to fix the problem by then.
Humanity does not need to do anything about carbon emissions, the problem is self limiting.
We have already used up the cheap easy oil.
While there is still oil out there, it will neither be cheap or easy to extract.
Yet a Saudi Prince has said Oil will never be over $100 a barrel again, why do you think that is?
Saudi prince: $100-a-barrel oil 'never' again
 

Howler63

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
1,899
Reaction score
553
Location
Just this side of senility.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Recognition of the climate importance of the Sun and GCR's continues to grow. This new paper suggests advocates of AGW orthodoxy may have to make some concessions.

Are we headed for a new solar minimum?

[FONT=&]Posted on June 27, 2016 | 92 comments[/FONT]
by Judith Curry
We can conclude that the evidence provided is sufficient to justify a complete updating and reviewing of present climate models to better consider these detected natural recurrences and lags in solar processes. – Jorge Sánchez-Sesma

Continue reading

In pondering how the climate of the 21st century will play out, solar variability has generally been dismissed as an important factor by the proponents of AGW. However, I think that it is important that scenarios of future solar variability and their potential impacts on climate should by considered in scenarios of future climate change.
I have been cursorily following the literature on this topic. I have recently been in communication with Jorge Sanchez-Sesma. He has new paper that was just accepted for publication in Earth System Dynamics, an interactive open-access journal published by the EGU. I am featuring this paper in a post since it provides important new analysis and insights on this topic, and also provides a useful assessment of the literature and current state of knowledge on this topic.
The significance of this paper is reflected in the EGU metrics link that indicates that this paper has been downloaded 1531 times so far (before it has been formally published).
Evidence of cosmic recurrent and lagged millennia-scale patterns and consequent forecasts: multi-scale responses of solar activity to planetary gravitational forcing [link]
Jorge Sánchez-Sesma

Abstract. Solar activity (SA) oscillations over the past millennia are analyzed and extrapolated based on reconstructed solar-related records. Here, simple recurrent models of SA signal are applied and tested. The consequent results strongly suggest the following: (a) the existence of multi-millennial (9500-year) scale solar patterns linked with planetary gravitational forcing (PGF), and (b) their persistence, over at least the last glacial– interglacial cycle, but possibly since the Miocene (10.5 Ma). This empirical modeling of solar recurrent patterns has also provided a consequent multi-millennial-scale experimental forecast, suggesting a solar decreasing trend toward Grand (Super) Minimum conditions for the upcoming period, AD2050–2250 (AD 3750–4450). Taking into account the importance of these estimated SA scenarios, a comparison is made with other SA forecasts. In Appendixes A and B, we provide further verification, testing and analysis of solar recurrent patterns since geological eras, and their potential gravitational forcing. . . .



In the grand scheme of things, it just doesn't matter. A million years from now, the Earth will be a verdant paradise, and man will be nothing more than a distant evolutionary dead end.
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
I swear- this thread title recurs every year.

Those deniers...always predicting the future.

Deniers... aren't you on the side that denies climate changes, and believes Government taxes and regulations can stop climate... changing? Also, you guys also dismiss the sun as a factor in climate... I guess when your solutions are lower standards of living and higher costs, taxes and regulated living, the Sun is an inconvenience.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
82,598
Reaction score
37,176
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Humanity does not need to do anything about carbon emissions, the problem is self limiting.
We have already used up the cheap easy oil.
While there is still oil out there, it will neither be cheap or easy to extract.
Yet a Saudi Prince has said Oil will never be over $100 a barrel again, why do you think that is?
Saudi prince: $100-a-barrel oil 'never' again

What do you expect the CO2 concentration to stabilize at?
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
32,625
Reaction score
10,539
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Cycles come back around because that's how cycles work.

CO2 levels will be higher when that happens.
CO2 is not permanent, it does get reabsorbed as biomass, at the reverse rate as the burning of fuel.
(1 lb of biomass needs about 3 lbs of CO2)
Besides if the sun is going into a cooling phase,
they tend (last 800,000 years) to be between 70,000 to 80,000 years long.
nature06949-f2.2.jpg

The bottom line is the Earth spend most of it's time in a cold phase.
 

bubbabgone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
31,885
Reaction score
16,194
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Recognition of the climate importance of the Sun and GCR's continues to grow. This new paper suggests advocates of AGW orthodoxy may have to make some concessions.

Are we headed for a new solar minimum?

[FONT=&]Posted on June 27, 2016 | 92 comments[/FONT]
by Judith Curry
We can conclude that the evidence provided is sufficient to justify a complete updating and reviewing of present climate models to better consider these detected natural recurrences and lags in solar processes. – Jorge Sánchez-Sesma

Continue reading

In pondering how the climate of the 21st century will play out, solar variability has generally been dismissed as an important factor by the proponents of AGW. However, I think that it is important that scenarios of future solar variability and their potential impacts on climate should by considered in scenarios of future climate change.
I have been cursorily following the literature on this topic. I have recently been in communication with Jorge Sanchez-Sesma. He has new paper that was just accepted for publication in Earth System Dynamics, an interactive open-access journal published by the EGU. I am featuring this paper in a post since it provides important new analysis and insights on this topic, and also provides a useful assessment of the literature and current state of knowledge on this topic.
The significance of this paper is reflected in the EGU metrics link that indicates that this paper has been downloaded 1531 times so far (before it has been formally published).
Evidence of cosmic recurrent and lagged millennia-scale patterns and consequent forecasts: multi-scale responses of solar activity to planetary gravitational forcing [link]
Jorge Sánchez-Sesma

Abstract. Solar activity (SA) oscillations over the past millennia are analyzed and extrapolated based on reconstructed solar-related records. Here, simple recurrent models of SA signal are applied and tested. The consequent results strongly suggest the following: (a) the existence of multi-millennial (9500-year) scale solar patterns linked with planetary gravitational forcing (PGF), and (b) their persistence, over at least the last glacial– interglacial cycle, but possibly since the Miocene (10.5 Ma). This empirical modeling of solar recurrent patterns has also provided a consequent multi-millennial-scale experimental forecast, suggesting a solar decreasing trend toward Grand (Super) Minimum conditions for the upcoming period, AD2050–2250 (AD 3750–4450). Taking into account the importance of these estimated SA scenarios, a comparison is made with other SA forecasts. In Appendixes A and B, we provide further verification, testing and analysis of solar recurrent patterns since geological eras, and their potential gravitational forcing. . . .

“I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but its not helping the cause,” - Mike Mann
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
32,625
Reaction score
10,539
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
What do you expect the CO2 concentration to stabilize at?
Best guess at this point is that we will be mostly carbon neutral fuels within 20 years,
so at the current rate that would put the CO2 level at about 460 ppm.
Of course the transition to carbon neutral fuels could occur much quicker.
People think the Government should do "something" , and there is something for Government to do,
They need to create uniform rules for home power production, so that both the homeowner
and the utilities benefit.
They also need to encourage the utilities to upgrade the power infrastructure to handle
the increased distributed sources and loads.
 

Howler63

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
1,899
Reaction score
553
Location
Just this side of senility.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Best guess at this point is that we will be mostly carbon neutral fuels within 20 years,
so at the current rate that would put the CO2 level at about 460 ppm.
Of course the transition to carbon neutral fuels could occur much quicker.
People think the Government should do "something" , and there is something for Government to do,
They need to create uniform rules for home power production, so that both the homeowner
and the utilities benefit.
They also need to encourage the utilities to upgrade the power infrastructure to handle
the increased distributed sources and loads.

Within 20 years?

You're kidding, right?
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
82,598
Reaction score
37,176
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
49,007
Reaction score
14,386
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Within 20 years?

You're kidding, right?

What makes you think it won't be that soon?

We have learned how to make fuel out of air. If we capture the CO2, make fuel, and burn back to CO2, it is a net zero flux. The problem isn't "if" we can do it, the question is how soon will it be cost effective.
 

Howler63

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
1,899
Reaction score
553
Location
Just this side of senility.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
What makes you think it won't be that soon?

We have learned how to make fuel out of air. If we capture the CO2, make fuel, and burn back to CO2, it is a net zero flux. The problem isn't "if" we can do it, the question is how soon will it be cost effective.

Can high-tech photosynthesis turn CO2 into fuel for your car? | Guardian Sustainable Business | The Guardian

There are lots of possibilities, but nothing concrete. I think you're 20 year timeline is crazy optimistic.
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
32,625
Reaction score
10,539
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Within 20 years?

You're kidding, right?
Not at all, the transition could be completely transparent to the end users, it will not be,
but no one will know the difference in the fuels.
Think about this, the current technology can make a gallon of gasoline for about 55 Kwh of electricity.
When Audi started making their own hydrocarbon fuels, they started with an old olefin cracking unit.
Within a few months (likely weeks) a modern refinery could transition from cracking crude oil to
using the olefin cracker to make whatever liquid fuel is needed.
The wholesale electricity rate is about $.05 per Kwh, so about $ 2.75 per gallon.
this represents oil at under $100 a barrel.
If the refineries make carbon neutral fuels for their existing distribution infrastructures,
the only way the buyers would know the difference is if the companies tell us.
(They will because the carbon neutral fuel may bring a higher price, and they need to
score some public relation points.)
Right now the only thing stopping this is the current low price of oil, which will last only as
long as the current over supply.
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
32,625
Reaction score
10,539
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Can high-tech photosynthesis turn CO2 into fuel for your car? | Guardian Sustainable Business | The Guardian

There are lots of possibilities, but nothing concrete. I think you're 20 year timeline is crazy optimistic.
Wrong technology!
As a side effect of a quest to store surplus photo voltaic power, a German University started looking at storing energy as hydrocarbon
natural gas. Audi advanced the idea to make liquid fuels. (so did the US Naval research labs).
The process is fairly simple.
audi-water-fuel.jpg

Hydrogen from water, CO2 from the atmosphere, build olefins, and make via standard process, whatever fuel is in demand.
The fuels are CO2 neutral.
 

Howler63

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
1,899
Reaction score
553
Location
Just this side of senility.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Wrong technology!
As a side effect of a quest to store surplus photo voltaic power, a German University started looking at storing energy as hydrocarbon
natural gas. Audi advanced the idea to make liquid fuels. (so did the US Naval research labs).
The process is fairly simple.
audi-water-fuel.jpg

Hydrogen from water, CO2 from the atmosphere, build olefins, and make via standard process, whatever fuel is in demand.
The fuels are CO2 neutral.

CO2 neutral...meaning they emit the same as they take in?
 
Top Bottom