Re: The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won’t notice)

From	"Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com>
Newsgroups	sci.physics, sci.astro, sci.space.policy
Subject	Re: The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won’t notice)
Date	2015-08-08 10:56 -0400
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<mq5587$tr2$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	<V56dnUGSBd3BizXInZ2dnUU7-KsAAAAA@giganews.com><1vll7c-ri.ln1@mail.specsol.com><N5OdnXN5GOdA9jXInZ2dnUU7-RUAAAAA@giganews.com><mpdeop$b28$1@dont-email.me> <shwpxd7hu3.fsf@lnxcu9.classe.cornell.edu>

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

The Little Ice Age was pretty bad in Europe. According to this page, by an 
AGW supporter, millions died by dearth and famine due to the LIA in Europe:

The Little Ice Age in Europe.
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/little_ice_age.html

Even if you suppose this was not global, it still was catastrophic for 
Europe and probably for most of the Northern Hemisphere, such as North 
America.

Then IF as you argue human-caused global warming would mitigate its effects, 
then ironically AGW would be a *good* thing to have occurred.

About the recent surface changes seen on other planets and Moons by 
astronomers, this is clearly even further outside the realm of expertise of 
climate scientists and we should trust their opinions on the issue even 
less.

   Bob Clark


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A mission to Europa could result in the most important scientific advance in 
human history, dwarfing even the Apollo missions, to discover life on 
another world. By commercial space, launch and spacecraft costs can be 
slashed by a factor of 10 or more. This would be a cost that could be 
financed privately. And at costs this low it can even be done at a profit:

Low cost Europa lander missions.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2015/02/low-cost-europa-lander-missions.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 12:53:11 PM UTC-4, Daniel S. Riley wrote:
> "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> writes:
> > The computer models describing current climate don't plug in a
> > *continual* reduction in the solar output by 0.1% obviously because
> > that hasn't been seen for 350 years.
>
> Actually, this has been modeled.  Understanding past climatic changes
> and how similar events would change modern climate has lot of interest.
> Plus, this is far from the first prediction that we're heading for a new
> "Maunder Minimum", so it's hard to understand why this prediction is
> getting so much attention.  We'll have to wait for the paper and
> observations to see if Zharkova's model is any more successful.
>
> > Note also that since the Sun's irradiance at the Earth is about 1,000
> > W/m^2, a drop of 0.1% would be about 1 W/m^2, about twice as large as
> > that heat imbalance you cite.
> >
> > And just as that heat imbalance over years can build up to increase
> > the overall temperature, a *continual* heat drop will combine over
> > several years to decrease the overall temperature.
> >
> > Also, the professor Zharkova presenting this new model of solar
> > activity suggests actually the irradiance drop during the Little Ice
> > Age was 3 W/m^2 and she infers the upcoming drop will be similar to
> > this.
> >
> > IF the irradiance drop really is that great that would be far outside
> > what the current models consider and would be well above what the
> > current heat imbalance is.
>
> There's some apples vs. bushels of oranges problems here.
>
> First, irradiance and forcing aren't the same.  TSI (irradiance) is the
> radiation arriving at the disc defined by the earth's outline, forcing
> is averaged over the surface and is reduced by the amount reflected back
> into space.  3 W/m^2 drop in TSI comes out to around 0.5 W/m^2 drop in
> solar forcing, about the same size as the current heat imbalance.  See
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget
> https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/07/12/mini-ice-age/
>
> Secondly, the heat imbalance isn't the total AGW forcing, you might
> think of it as the delayed component because the earth doesn't react
> instantaneously to changes in forcing.  Total change in AGW forcing
> since 1970 is close to 2 W/m^2 and continuing to rise.  A new grand
> minimum might offset 25% of warming so far, likely less, consistent with
> an offset of no more than -0.3C from the models.  Warming would continue
> since AGW forcing is continuing to grow, and, if Zharkova's model is
> correct, we get a corresponding jump up after 3 solar cycles when the
> sun returns to normal.
>
> For examples of some recent models with grand minimum TSI reductions:
>
> "On the effect of a new grand minimum of solar activity on the
> future climate on Earth"
> Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L05707, doi:10.1029/2010GL042710.
>
> discussed here:
>
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/06/what-if-the-sun-went-into-a-new-grand-minimum/
>
> also
>
> "Regional climate impacts of a possible future grand solar minimum"
> http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150623/ncomms8535/full/ncomms8535.html
>
> "What influence will future solar activity changes over the 21st century
> have on projected global near-surface temperature changes?"
> J. Geophys. Res., 117, D05103, doi:10.1029/2011JD017013
> cached: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011JD017013.pdf
>
> > Interestingly, at the end of the interview the professor mentions also
> > global warming indications seen on other planets.
>
> Tired old talking points, clearly outside her area of research.
> Nothing new.
>
> -dan

Thread

Re: The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won’t notice) "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2015-07-30 11:12 -0400
  Re: The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won’t notice) jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-08-02 12:05 +0200
    Re: The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won’t notice) HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-02 06:58 -0400
  Re: The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won’t notice) dsr@mail.lns.cornell.edu (Daniel S. Riley) - 2015-08-02 12:53 -0400
    Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-08-03 00:12 +0200
      Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-08-02 19:57 -0400
        Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-08-03 10:40 +0200
          Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-08-03 08:03 -0400
            Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-08-03 14:37 +0200
              Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 13:28 -0400
            Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-08-03 14:41 +0200
              Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-08-03 22:40 -0400
                Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 06:48 -0400
            Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-08-03 14:51 +0200
              Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 08:18 -0700
              Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 13:35 -0400
                Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-08-03 20:37 +0200
                Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-08-03 22:40 -0400
                Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 02:51 -0400
                Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 02:23 -0400
                Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 00:01 -0700
                Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 13:35 -0400
                Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 03:43 -0700
                Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 01:21 -0400
                Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-08-07 12:50 +0200
                Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-08-07 13:23 +0200
                Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 00:43 -0700
                Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-08-04 08:30 -0400
                Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 14:07 -0400
                Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 03:46 -0700
                Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-08-05 08:51 -0400
                Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-08-05 20:23 +0200
                Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-08-06 02:04 -0400
                Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 23:42 -0700
                Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-08-08 09:25 -0400
                Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 02:22 -0700
                Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-08-10 09:34 -0400
                Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 10:37 -0400
                Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 13:55 -0400
                Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 01:05 -0700
                Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-08-12 11:17 +0200
                Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-08-12 05:44 -0400
                Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-12 05:19 -0700
                Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 08:05 -0500
                Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-08-13 02:34 -0400
                Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 22:23 -0700
                Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 00:45 -0700
                Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-08-04 09:52 +0200
                Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-08-04 08:55 -0400
                Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2015-08-04 19:28 -0400
    Re: The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won’t notice) "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2015-08-08 10:56 -0400
      Re: The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won?t notice) R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2015-08-08 15:19 +0000
        Re: The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won?t notice) Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-08-08 12:07 -0500

csiph-web