Grand solar minimum and global warming

Discussion in 'Environment' started by Matthew, Oct 1, 2010.

  1. Matthew
    Offline

    Matthew Blue dog all the way!

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2010
    Messages:
    49,711
    Thanks Received:
    4,604
    Trophy Points:
    1,885
    Location:
    Portland Oregon
    Ratings:
    +15,178
    We're within the deepest solar minimum since 1910-1912, which was solar cycle 14th and was only slightly longer over all then 23. Scienctist believe that events like the Maunder Minimum was the main negative forcing that helped make the little ice age that was -.8 to -1.0c below "todays" 1951-1980 avg...But didn't get that cold within one solar grand minimum, but many over 400 years. So it compounds into its self.

    Lets say that this minimum we're in has already taken away -.1c, which makes sense that years like 2010 with weaker el nino's can rank with 1998, which was a beast and most powerful el nino in recorded history. To make matters clear area 3.4, which scientist measure these things in 1998 was near 2.8c, but march 2010 the peak of the last el nino was near 1.8c...One whole degree "C" below 1998, but this year kicked its ass. Why even within a solar minimum that can within a few years take -.1c off the earth's temperature can a weaker nino do that and why; you guessed it->.15c of global warming over the last decade. The question now lays on how strong la nina gets throughout the rest of this year rather we will see second place with 1998 had close to strong and we're strong now and growing in strength as the pacific cools...I think we will be close, but 2005 fall was much warmer so it might hold onto the record.

    Sure the longer it last we will see compounding effects, which will mask the effects. I'd bet the compounding effects by 2020 "if" the solar minimum is still around then will be near .25c to .3c...Sure we could be seeing global records with weaker el nino's then, but the full effect will be masked. So when ever we get out of it and find out the true strength of global warming. Might come as a shock!
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2010
  2. Matthew
    Offline

    Matthew Blue dog all the way!

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2010
    Messages:
    49,711
    Thanks Received:
    4,604
    Trophy Points:
    1,885
    Location:
    Portland Oregon
    Ratings:
    +15,178
    I used to believe that the solar grand minimum would cause a global cooling, which it should, but it appears that we have a warmer planet then it was in the late 90's. Global warming explains why.
     
  3. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,474
    Thanks Received:
    5,416
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,318
  4. Matthew
    Offline

    Matthew Blue dog all the way!

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2010
    Messages:
    49,711
    Thanks Received:
    4,604
    Trophy Points:
    1,885
    Location:
    Portland Oregon
    Ratings:
    +15,178
    Cool,

    My climate prediction
    10-2-2010

    This is based off of 1980 means from chart one and chart two I made is my prediction...This prediction adds in the solar forcing and likely AMO change. It forecast 1.5c of warming by 2100, which is well below the IPCC. The "Means" is strongly weighed by the last 20 year trend. So this is strongly based on observed trends.

    The means is based on .14 to .2c of warming since 2000...We chose to go closer with the lower estimate of .15c of warming between 2000-2010. We then forecast each coming decade out to 2050 to warm at the same amount as 2000-2010 time period.

    High-Based on 1980-1990 rising .5 and 1990-2000 rising 1.0 and of course 2000-2010 rising 1.5. So the period since 1980 has rised three fold and so the high bases this becoming a decadely like thing.

    Low-It is based on the solar minimum compounding its self starting at -.1c of downwards becoming -.15c of forcing by 2030 and -.2c of downward forcing by 2050.

    Here is the means, which are based on 1951-1981 avg.
    2000 .4c
    2010 .55c
    2013, .60c the year a avg year should beat 1998 without a problem...
    2020 .7c
    2030 .85c
    2040 1.00c
    2050 1.15c
    2070 1.4547c
    2100 1.9c

    Figure the difference between 2000 and the dates above by
    x-.4c=

    x being the degree of the year...Like 2010, .55c would go in for x as .55c-.4=.15 and 2020 will go into this like .7-.4=.3c...Lastly 1.9c by 2100 is 1.9-.4=1.5c of warming within the next 90 years...Twice the 1880-2000 warming.

    AMO might add some downward forcing after 2030, but we will just as likely be outside of the solar minimum and so it is likely the numbers will fall within this range. The blue line includes this stuff. Which is just as possible as the means, which is based on the last 10 years. The red is the extreme.

    ...I expect people won't like it, but I just wanted to play with numbers some.:tongue: Of course it could be lower...If solar output and AMO team up, but with what we know I think it is pretty good.

    The best we can do right now is go by what we know of warm periods like the Med evil warm period, Roman warm period, ect. So I don't think we're going to have any cool periods over the next 100-150 years. Making me feel better about this.

    Another interesting things: 1998 avg near .6c globally, so we should be crossing that point around 2013-2016, which nearly any non nina year could start beating it without nino. This is assuming the trend stays with the 2000-2010. 2005 did based on Giss and was not really strong nino at all...2009 came damn close even with a cool start. So it makes sense that most years outside moderate to strong nina's should be able to do it after this time frame..

    Anyways the best temperature with the highest possibility ranges .05c of both sides of means within the next 20 years, .1c from 20-30 years, and .15c from 40-100 years.
    With a higher likely hood of being right below means trend of 2000-2010 extended with the .1c 20-30 years wording above.
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Oct 2, 2010
  5. skookerasbil
    Offline

    skookerasbil Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    24,222
    Thanks Received:
    2,913
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Not the middle of nowhere
    Ratings:
    +6,223


    How much do I love coming in here???!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You find the narccisistic capitol of the world...........people making their own predictions on the end of the world and posting it up!!! Id suggest taking a gandor out to Siberia, stripping down naked and screaming "FIRE". I'td make more of an impact on people............


    The threads in this forum are nothing more than k00k statistical circle jerk sessions...........its like a bunch of people showing up every morning to sit around on beach chairs to watch a slug fry in the sunlight and saying, "w0w...........did you fcukking see that man???!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"


    Only matters if we are marching towards a green economy s0ns which was blown to shit when people figured out their electric bills were going to double..............sorry to break the news of harsh reality, but somebody's gotta inject some sense of real into this forum!!!:lol: There is a real world out there.............which dictates that, unless you're a fukking k00k, you're not going to voluntarily smash your head against a brick wall 100 times based upon some scientists prediction that it will rain in 127 days, 14 hours and 32 seconds!!!


    How likely is Crap and Tax legislation? About as likely as the congress voting to put blacks in the backs of buses again!!!:funnyface::funnyface:
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2010
  6. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    nice hand made graph tho :lol:
     
  7. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,474
    Thanks Received:
    5,416
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,318
    The problem with predictions, at present, are the factors that we don't know. Such as feedbacks from clouds, and what kind of feedback will we get from a differant atmospheric circulation pattern.

    Thus far, the predictions of the climate scientists have been far too conservative. The Arctic Sea Ice melt, and the melting of the permafrost have both, by far, exceeded the predictions of the climatologists. The precipitation events of the past couple of years have been an unpleasant surprise, with the predicted affect on food crops in various nations, but coming much sooner than it was thought possible only a decade ago.
     
  8. Matthew
    Offline

    Matthew Blue dog all the way!

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2010
    Messages:
    49,711
    Thanks Received:
    4,604
    Trophy Points:
    1,885
    Location:
    Portland Oregon
    Ratings:
    +15,178
    ...

    This thread is based on science and figuring out how the future will be based on different variables like ENSO, PDO, NAO, AO and solar output and the effects of that. That is how science works and how humanity has figured out a large part of it through doing so....Many scientist spend tens of thousands of hours behind a desk mentally slamming their head at least feeling like it against it to become that scientist that you have no respect for. That you went to laugh at...

    What I'm doing is more or less is just figuring out what these effects have on our climate and looking at the trend of the last 30 years. The base line or middle line is all the last 10 years trend,,,It is happening right now, but as I said because of other negative factors that beneath it would be more likely. It is not like it is not already doing so right.

    This is what people in the sciences do...Be lucky there where people doing this throughout the centuries because your and my life would be a living hell today if not.

    In NO I do not support cap and trend. It is stupid, but do support nuclear all the way. I went less government within our lives, but believe that nuclear would be best of all our worlds.
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2010
  9. CrusaderFrank
    Online

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,236
    Thanks Received:
    14,914
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +37,019
    Wow! So wait a second, if an extra 200PPM CO2 is THAT POWERFUL that it can overcome a solar minimum you should be easily able to demonstrate that effect in a laboratory setting right?

    Grow a fucking sac, put on a lab coat and show us all how a 200PPM increase in CO2 raises temperature.
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2010
  10. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,474
    Thanks Received:
    5,416
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,318
    When nuclear becomes competative with other alternatives in price, then I would support it as a mainstay of the grid. As it stands today, nuclear in a good base, but far too expensive for that primary source.

    The Solar Roads proposal looks very interesting, could be a major, and fairly inexpensive source, of energy. Doing double duty cuts the cost, and the cost of photovoltaic material is dropping now on a weekly basis, even as the efficiency is increasing rapidly.

    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ep4L18zOEYI]YouTube - Solar Roadways: The Prototype[/ame]
     

Share This Page