Grand Solar Minimum
I would like to urge all #steemstem participants to watch the following video by Dr. Valentina Zharkova concerning the upcoming Grand Solar Minimum and the impacts this will likely have on global temperature and food production:
Dr. Valentina Zharkova warning of Global Cooling, Food Scarcity in Grand Solar Minimum (2018)
It is likely that within a few short years we will be experiencing climatic conditions similar to those experienced during the Maunder Minimum (also called the Little Ice Age):
Be prepared for cold winters, especially in Europe and North America!
I am not a "climate change denier"! I believe that climate is always changing. I just don't believe that CO2 produced by human activities is solely responsible for the modest increase in the temperature of the global lower atmosphere in the last 40 years. Predictions made by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) have failed dismally, and will continue to do so if they do not factor in the influence of the heartbeat of the sun on our climate as described by Zharkova et al.:
The next decade or two will provide a critical test of the CO2-driven global warming hypothesis versus the solar-driven global cooling hypothesis.
Well, we will see. I suspect that people will find that CO2 trapping earth core heat will result in continued warming despite the "grand solar minimum."
At least I am somewhat convinced by the publications I have read and presentations/lectures I have attended.
Voted for controversial opinion.
I agree that this issue is very controversial. Nevertheless I think it would be prudent to heed warnings of imminent deterioration in climatic conditions towards Little Ice Age conditions and prepare accordingly:
Mörner, N. (2015) The Approaching New Grand Solar Minimum and Little Ice Age Climate Conditions. Natural Science, 7, 510-518
Unfortunately the data overwhelmingly indicates an opposing trajectory with regards to your assessment.
https://www.scirp.org/journal/Journalcitationdetails.aspx?JournalID=69
Good lord.
Please don't cite a Predatory, fraudulent open access journal to validate your self.
I think it is true to say that current "climate science" is highly polarized and politicized. There is a wide range of opinions. Many argue that the CO2-driven global warming hypothesis is "settled" science, and that anyone who questions its validity are engaged in "climate change denial".
Whatever happened to rational debate and scientific inquiry to understand the full complexity of climate dynamics?:
Scott Waldman, E&E News reporter. Judith Curry retires, citing 'craziness' of climate science. Climatewire: Wednesday, January 4, 2017
If you want additional reading on the potential impacts of the next Grand Solar Minimum on winter climate in Europe and North America in journals that are not on Beall's list of "potential predatory journals" then please consider these articles:
Maycock, A.C, Ineson, S., Gray, L.J., Scaife, A.A., Anstey, J.A., Lockwood, M., Butchart, N., Hardiman, S.C., Mitchell, D.M., Osprey, S.M. Possible impacts of a future grand solar minimum on climate: Stratospheric and global circulation changes. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 120: 9043-9058 (2015)
Ineson, S., Maycock, A.C., Gray, L.J., Scaife, A.A., Dunstone, N.J., Harder, J.W., Knight, J.R., Lockwood, M., Manners, J.C., Wood, R.A. Regional climate impacts of a possible future grand solar minimum. Nat. Commun. 6: 7535 (2015)
Frankly, there is no such thing as "settled" science. You are certainly correct that there is a political element to discussions of climate science, and certainly commercial interests inserting their own biases on either side of the "political" argument. It's one such reason why one should look into funding statements, and certainly into the journals in which material is published.
These sources are significantly more credible than the previous you provided. Certainly there is no denying the effects of solar radiative output on Earth climate. However the data is also clear about the heat trapping effects of CO2 and other gasses which act as a sink for radiant heat, which is produced not only by solar radiation but also by the cooling of the planets core.
What I would like to see spelled out more clearly is the relative magnitude of the effect of the pending solar minimum, to the magnitude of the net effect of rising greenhouse gasses.
In the end, we must go where the data takes us. I continue to wait for data to convince me that anthropogenic contributions are not driving current warming, and that the continued trajectory of green house gas accumulation will not overcome the effects of other factors.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Much appreciated!
I agree that it would be extremely valuable to see spelled out more clearly the relative magnitude of the effect of the grand solar minimum and the net effect of rising greenhouse gases.
It has been argued by some that the effect of the grand solar minimum would be modest :
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2010GL042710
However, these calculations depend upon the accuracy of the climate models, and Judith Curry has expressed concern with their over-simplicity.
Just today an article was published in Nature showing that the current climate change models are deficient in their treatment of meltwater effects, and that incorporating meltwater into CMIP5 climate models "delays the exceedance of the maximum global-mean atmospheric warming targets of 1.5 and 2 degrees Celsius by more than a decade"
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0712-z
I am certain the models are deficient in a variety of other aspects as well. They are designed by humans whom are imperfect and while most of the models do a decent job of recapitulating past events, extrapolation forward is always much more difficult, especially when you descover new variables quite often.
Whether or not the models are off in part is less important than if their general trajectory is correct. IE, is anthropogenic production of greenhouse gasses sufficient to result in the recent uptick in global temperatures (lets say with a decade rolling average)? I sort of feel like a broken record asking these questions because the observations indicating that it is, still hold true (to my knowledge).
Are the models perfect, heavens no. Are they entirely incorrect? It doesn't appear so. Would I change my personal position with sufficient data? Sure. I honestly don't care about the politics of it all. I gain nothing from the earth warming or cooling. :)
Cheers.
I will keep reviewing the literature and reading, using that to refine my viewpoint as things come to light.
Congratulations @davidrhodes124! You have completed the following achievement on the Steem blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click here to view your Board of Honor
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPThis post has been voted on by the SteemSTEM curation team and voting trail in collaboration with @curie.
If you appreciate the work we are doing then consider voting both projects for witness by selecting stem.witness and curie!
For additional information please join us on the SteemSTEM discord and to get to know the rest of the community!
I'm not from the field of climate, but I know how to search through the papers. After reading - I'm not sure what to think about human activities and CO2
I like what these researchers are doing to monitor solar effects on our atmosphere:
Mlynczak, M.G., Hunt, L.A., Russell, J.M., Marshall B.T. Thermosphere climate indexes: Percentile ranges and adjectival descriptors. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics Volume 174, September 2018, Pages 28-31.
Anthony Watts, NASA: The chill of solar minimum is being felt in our atmosphere – cooling trend seen. September 28, 2018
One of the lectures that convinced me that solar activity (rather than CO2) is responsible for climate change is "All Climate Change is Natural - Professor Carl-Otto Weiss":