What do make of this headline,”NASA predicts next solar cycle will be lowest in 200 years (dalton minimum levels)”?

An approaching Grand Solar Minimum is gaining evermore support. Even NASA appears to be on-board, with their recent SC25 prediction — though, predictably, they stay clear of the implications.

https://electroverse.net/nasa-predicts-next-solar-...

14 Answers

Relevance
  • 6 months ago
    Favorite Answer

    About time. The article also notes Zharkova's solar research and predictions all of which are coming true. She does back off a bit by announcing that this upcoming Grand Minimum will be more like the Dalton Minimum.

    This year's Northern Hemisphere spring and summer have been a roller coaster of hot and cold. Agriculture is taking a big hit worldwide with crop losses from cold, wet weather, extreme heat, hail and other predicted anomalies. Volcanic activity has increased as predicted and there has been a significance increase in the Galactic Cosmic ray flux because of the inactive solar cycle.

    AGW and CO2 are non-factors in climate change. The Sun, Galactic Cosmic ray flux, planetary orbital variances and Nature are the drivers.

    UPDATE: Liz's answer highlights the first factor, the Sun's TSI. A lower TSI means a lower magnetosphere, meaning less defense against Galactic Cosmic ray flux, therefore GCR getting through causing more high level clouds increasing the Albedo Effect, thus cooling.

    Planetary orbital variances are also not addressed by Liz and there and there is one coming about in 2024, that I won't go into. Volcanic activity is predicted to increase, which by the way has already started.

    The Sun's activity level is the start of a chain reaction that will cause climate change. Putting mathematics before science, inhibits science.

    Attachment image
    • ...Show all comments
    • $@!ar W!nd
      Lv 6
      6 months agoReport

      Yushless, why don't you explain what happens when SWIR from the Sun hits the Earth? Explain Galactic Cosmic ray flux or even orbital variations and their influence of the climate.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 6 months ago

    YES GOBAL WARMIN IS A HOAX.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 6 months ago

    The problem is that, for all the talk about the impending 'solar minimum', the reality is it won't affect the temperature of the planet by all that much. To prove it, I'll do a simple calculation.

    Let's take the graphs supplied by Solar Wind. They show a drop in Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) of 3 W/m^2 or 0.2%. Now, to make the point, I'll triple this! Let's make the drop in TSI 3x what the graph says.

    What this means is that the TSI resulting from the solar minimum would be 99.4% relative to now, or 0.994.

    The temperature of our planet is basically the temperature at which the rate radiated energy leaves our planet matches the rate of energy supply by the sun. The radiated energy is given by the Stefan-Boltzman law.

    So we can write the following ratio equation:

    TSI (during minimum) / TSI (now) = T2^4 (temperature during minimum) / T1^4 (temperature now)

    The temperature now is about 15 C or 288 K. If we fill in the values:

    0.994 = T2^4 / 288^4

    T2 = 287.5 K

    So, in other words, a drop in TSI by three times the amount some skeptics are worrying about results in a global drop in temperature of 0.5 C. This is half of the warming we've seen since 1880, and since CO2 and associated feedbacks are warming the planet at a rate of 0.15 C per decade, this *exaggerated* drop I'm using to make the point, would be offset in about 30 to 40 years. A drop in TSI by the 0.2% value used in the graph gives a drop in temperature of about 0.15 C which means it'll barely register compared to the warming trend.

    • ...Show all comments
    • $@!ar W!nd
      Lv 6
      6 months agoReport

      You see I have learned, to trouble shoot a system you must know how the system works from the front to the back. IPCC climate science focuses on the back end results, tinkers with that area, massages the data and has no clue about the Front end.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • sam
    Lv 6
    6 months ago

    it wont have much of an effect with rising greenhouse gases. THEN...what happens at the end of that cycle?...even MORE warming.

    • ...Show all comments
    • Climate Realist
      Lv 7
      6 months agoReport

      A higher GCR flux can only lead to more clouds if

      1. There is a moist, unstable air mass, and
      2. In the absence of other cloud seeding mechanisms, such as clouds.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • JimZ
    Lv 7
    6 months ago

    It is scarier to me than a little warming from our CO2. Cooling has been linked historically to famine and pestilence whereas warming has been associated with the optimum periods and I chose the word optimum for a reason. Warm periods were always referred to optimums prior to the chicken little climate cultists. I'm not very worried either way. Maybe our CO2 will buy us a little warming to help counteract potential cooling from a solar minimum.

    Dirac talks about the "forcing" from the last 10 years but the climate hasn't done much for the last 20 years at least according to the satellite temperature measurements. That is a big problem with their models and their assumptions. They just ignore reality and focus on their failed models.

    • ...Show all comments
    • Climate Realist
      Lv 7
      6 months agoReport

      And, even according to UAH6, it has warmed just as much in the last 20 years as in the 20 years before then.
      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/plot/uah6/from:1999/to:2019/trend/plot/uah6/to:1999/trend

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Gabe
    Lv 6
    6 months ago

    Who gives a s hit.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Cowboy
    Lv 6
    6 months ago

    The minimum is coming, sure,but it'll mean very little to earth's climate - any impact there might have been is being masked by humankind's enormous belching of CO2 once locked deep in the earth - we've stretched things beyond nature's ability to spring back...sorry but your line of reasoning is total crap.......

    • JimZ
      Lv 7
      6 months agoReport

      I think your rubberband theory is full of it but it is entertaining none the less. The questioner wasn't really giving any line of reasoning IMO.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    6 months ago

    Its been well known for a while, if you look at your chart you can see the suns output has been in decline since about the 1970's (hard to tell exactly) and yet the planet has still warmed exponentially since then, I suppose its marginally comforting that it could be worse.

    • ...Show all comments
    • Super Hans is paid to post on Yahoo Global Warming. He works for for https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/. They do this crap on other websites. They have no interest in debate. They are using Yahoo as a PR board. They violate policy by moving opposing questions.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Dirac
    Lv 4
    6 months ago

    What's important is not the number of sunspots, per se, but the total solar irradiance (TSI). If we look at a reconstruction of TSI going back to 1600, the maximum and minimum TSI was 1361.6 watts per square meter to 1360 watts per square meter. If the next solar cycle goes to a similar low, would this be enough to stop global warming, or perhaps even induce global cooling? Let's look at it.

    The sun doesn't shine on the night side of the planet, and it doesn't shine directly on most places on the day side. When you take those two effects into account, you need to divide the TSI by a factor of 4. That means that the minimum average solar irradiance over those 400+ years is 340 watts per square meter, while the maximum was 340.4 watts per square meter. However, the albedo of the Earth is about 30%, that means that only about 70% of this averaged solar radiance matters, so then the variation goes from 238.0 watts per square meter to 238.28 watts per square meter. That means that we might expect a total variation of no more than 0.28 watts per square meter from this low solar cycle. The current forcing from CO2 is about 2 watts per square meter, or about 7 times larger. This sort of decrease would be equivalent to the forcing seen from CO2 about 10 years ago. While that's lower than the present, we still had substantial warming then. Of course, CO2 keeps going up, so there is no reason to expect anything but continued warming, albeit perhaps at a somewhat slower rate.

    You can see the reconstructed TSI at the link in the comment.

    EDIT: The obnoxious troll dedicates 20+ comments to saying that I am not interested in debate, despite all the obvious evidence to the contrary--look at my dialogue with Jeff, catwhisperer07, Solar Wind, graphicconception, etc. I would say that the person that isn't interested in debate is the one that floods this room with duplicated comments and who never debates the issues.

    Another EDIT for the obnoxious troll and JimZ: I don't have co-workers in here. If anyone maliciously moves questions, that is wrong. I am against moving questions from you science illiterates--I love to destroy your idiotic arguments. Whoever is moving questions--please leave them here so I can continue to show these people as the fools they are.

    As for JimZ's comments, personally I think that the satellite temperatures are inferior for a number of reasons. They use non-localized remote sensing, for one, so that the measurements that go into their algorithms come from a vertically smeared section of the atmosphere. In other words, they don't measure surface temperature. They're also dependent on using inverse theory from a particular model of atmospheric radiance, and they haven't been around that long and there have been BIG changes in the algorithms--much bigger than any of the corrections that deniers worry about regarding measures of surface temperature. All that being said, when I look at the UAH lower troposphere temperature index, the trend is upward over its entire history AND over the past couple of decades. Using the "Woodfortrees" interactive plotting the trend since 2000 appears to be about 0.12 K/decade, but there is so much variation in the UAH measure that I suspect the error bars on that trend would be quite large. Nevertheless, it shows warming, just like all the other temperature data sets and contrary to what JimZ says. I'll provide a link to the Woodfortrees plot in the comments, in case anyone wants to look at it, but I don't think most deniers are really interested in hearing anything that might conflict with their world view.

  • 6 months ago

    It was inevitable as the Northern Hemisphere is experiencing cold temperatures, crop losses and the Southern Hemisphere does not have it any better. The dialogue regarding a magnetic pole shift is building and I wonder how much that is affecting the climate.

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.