Climate Change: Its Not About Climate
The bulk if climate science doesnt think that the solar minimum will offset the warming.
I apologize for not responding to you sooner. Other duties cropped up and I put you on the back burner. I’ll try to make up for it here.
I read your link. Here’s what I consider the money shot from them:
But if such a Grand Solar Minimum occurred, how big of an effect might it have? In terms of climate forcing – a factor that could push the climate in a particular direction – solar scientists estimate it would be about -0.1 W/m2, the same impact of about three years of current carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration growth.
Thus, a new Grand Solar Minimum would only serve to offset a few years of warming caused by human activities.
They’re only focusing on TSI and wrongly assuming that all photons from the sun are created equal. They’re also ignoring the impact of the sun’s and earth’s magnetosphere. You may find comfort in their soothing tones. You should dig a little deeper.
I find searching the NASA blog to be as frustrating as the search feature at PP.com. I put different search terms in their search window and finally found an article that helps to explain the significance of reduced magnetism on the earth’s upper atmosphere. I didn’t bookmark the page and can’t find it after a couple of hours of searching. I did find this article from 2013:
Jan. 8, 2013: In the galactic scheme of things, the Sun is a remarkably constant star. While some stars exhibit dramatic pulsations, wildly yo-yoing in size and brightness, and sometimes even exploding, the luminosity of our own sun varies a measly 0.1% over the course of the 11-year solar cycle.
There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate. A new report issued by the National Research Council (NRC), “The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate,” lays out some of the surprisingly complex ways that solar activity can make itself felt on our planet.
One of the participants, Greg Kopp of the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics at the University of Colorado, pointed out that while the variations in luminosity over the 11-year solar cycle amount to only a tenth of a percent of the sun’s total output, such a small fraction is still important. “Even typical short term variations of 0.1% in incident irradiance exceed all other energy sources (such as natural radioactivity in Earth’s core) combined,” he says.
Of particular importance is the sun’s extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation, which peaks during the years around solar maximum. Within the relatively narrow band of EUV wavelengths, the sun’s output varies not by a minuscule 0.1%, but by whopping factors of 10 or more. This can strongly affect the chemistry and thermal structure of the upper atmosphere.
Several researchers discussed how changes in the upper atmosphere can trickle down to Earth’s surface. There are many “top-down” pathways for the sun’s influence. For instance, Charles Jackman of the Goddard Space Flight Center described how nitrogen oxides (NOx) created by solar energetic particles and cosmic rays in the stratosphere could reduce ozone levels by a few percent. Because ozone absorbs UV radiation, less ozone means that more UV rays from the sun would reach Earth’s surface.
Isaac Held of NOAA took this one step further. He described how loss of ozone in the stratosphere could alter the dynamics of the atmosphere below it. “The cooling of the polar stratosphere associated with loss of ozone increases the horizontal temperature gradient near the tropopause,” he explains. “This alters the flux of angular momentum by mid-latitude eddies. [Angular momentum is important because] the angular momentum budget of the troposphere controls the surface westerlies.” In other words, solar activity felt in the upper atmosphere can, through a complicated series of influences, push surface storm tracks off course.
Finally, many participants noted the difficulty in deciphering the sun-climate link from paleoclimate records such as tree rings and ice cores. Variations in Earth’s magnetic field and atmospheric circulation can affect the deposition of radioisotopes far more than actual solar activity. A better long-term record of the sun’s irradiance might be encoded in the rocks and sediments of the Moon or Mars. Studying other worlds might hold the key to our own.
How incoming galactic cosmic rays and solar protons penetrate the atmosphere. SOURCE: C. Jackman, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, “The Impact of Energetic Particle Precipitation on the Atmosphere,” presentation to the Workshop on the Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate, September 9, 2011.
The article is just a synopsis of the report. (I didn’t read the report because it is behind a paywall.) Obviously, this article has to just touch on what the authors consider significant. Even in NASA, the scientists have unique experiences and points of focus. As a result, they only see incredible detail in their small picture and describe their world as such. That doesn’t make it right. It is just what it is. Basically, there’s too much knowledge out there to learn it all.
It’s easy to get sucked into the narrative that we’re destroying the planet and that we need to change to save it. It’s even easier if cherry-picked dates have some basis in logic to defend the choice. For instance, Climate Change Worriers like to pick 1850 as the start of the industrial revolution and when our consumption of fossil fuels increased exponentially. With ever increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, the earth’s temperatures have increased. The question boils down to whether there is causality, coincidence, or a combination.
So, for the time being, I’m going to assume that CO2 is the sole driver of our temperature increase over the last 170 years. In 1850, atmospheric CO2 concentration was around 280 PPM. Now, we’re about 420 PPM. That’s a 50% increase in CO2 concentration to get about 1°C of warming over the last 170 years. If CO2 were the sole driver of earth’s temperature, and since CO2 levels didn’t vary considerably before 1850, wouldn’t you conclude that the average temperature on earth would be monotonously constant?
Yet, we’ve seen drastic swings in average temperatures throughout history. (Typically, society expands during the warming periods and contracts during the cooling periods.) If CO2 were the sole driver, that shouldn’t have happened … yet it did. Something other than CO2 concentration is driving our average temperatures.
I’m pasting the entire article from Dr Roger Higgs: Global warming and cooling for last 2,000 years mimic Sun’s magnetic activity, not CO2 – Electroverse because it is only 500 words +/-. Dr. Higgs is saying that the solar magnetic output (with a lag) is the driver.
Below is a 500-word abstract for Geological Society (London) virtual conference ‘Climate Change in the Geological Record’, 26-27th May 2021 — written by Dr Roger Higgs, Geoclastica Ltd, UK (submitted April 8, 2021).
Most scientists urge shifting to nuclear and/or renewable energy, amply justified by air pollution, dwindling fossil fuels and, many believe, global warming by CO2.
For the last 2,000 years Earth’s average surface temperature (by proxies and post-1750 thermometers) closely matches solar-magnetic output (SMO) (ice-core proxies, sunspots, neutron detectors, magnetometers), after applying a ~100-year temperature lag. Both fell for 1,000 years from ~400AD into the Little Ice Age (LIA; ~1400-1900). Then SMO surged from ~1700AD (Maunder Minimum), the largest rise in 9,000 (sic) years, growing 130% in the 20th Century alone, reaching the strongest solar ‘grand maximum’ (1937-2004; peak 1991). (Contrast <0.5% parallel increase in total solar irradiance [TSI].) Temperature surged too, from the final LIA nadir ~1830 (Berkeley-HadCRUT data) to 2016, the largest warming (~1.3C) and highest peak in 2,000 years. The temperature and SMO graphs share two further characteristics, besides overall ‘hockey-stick’ shape: (A) multi-decadal up-down ‘sawteeth’, with superimposed 3-to-20-year sawteeth (longer than ENSO); and (B) surge amplitude about twice the 1,000-year decline. Three simple cross-matches confirm the ~100-year lag: (1) LIA’s three coldest peaks (~1470, 1610, 1830) mimic three SMO extreme minima (~1330, 1450, 1700); (2) the Sun’s 310AD peak (second-highest) aligns with a prominent ~450AD warm peak (with abundant geological-archaeological evidence for a ~3-metre sea-level rise in <100 years); (3) successive HadCRUT sawteeth cusps at 1910, 1945 and 1975 correspond to 1810, 1840 and 1890 (sunspot 30-year-smoothed chart).
In contrast, CO2 has six mismatches with the 2,000-year temperature profile: (1) CO2 was trendless before its modern rise from ~1850 by industrial emissions; (2) warming began (~1830, above) before CO2’s rise; (3) CO2’s rise was continuous (except seasonal sawteeth [Keeling Curve] and slight decline 1940-44), unlike very punctuated warming (supra-annual sawteeth, above; 30-year coolings 1880-1910, 1945-75; pause 1998-2013); (4) CO2 has steadily accelerated from 1944, but warming has not (after its 1975 resumption); (5) the 1975-2016 warming episode had the same gradient as the previous one (1910-45), while the CO2 gradient increased fourfold; (6) the Berkeley-HadCRUT dataset includes solar frequencies, unlike CO2. Evidently, CO2 and temperature are uncorrelated.
The foregoing evidence collectively indicates that the Sun governs global temperature, consistent with Svensmark’s SMO-cosmic ray-cloudiness theory. Volcanic mega-eruptions, commonest during exceptional SMO minima, augment solar-driven cooling (LIA “volcanic-solar downturns”). The ~100-year temperature lag is attributable to oceanic thermal inertia (high heat capacity, slow mixing). This ‘ocean-lag’, variably estimated by previous authors as 10-100 years, explains why warming persists today, despite solar weakening since 1991.
The logical conclusion is that negative feedbacks cancel CO2’s greenhouse effect. A “potentially very important” but poorly constrained natural feedback acknowledged by IPCC but omitted in their climate models is rising ‘BVOC’ aerosol emissions from forests growing faster by enhanced photosynthesis (‘CO2 fertilization’). Other IPCC climate-model errors include: assuming negligible solar influence because TSI changes are trivial (ignores SMO); and disregarding ocean lag. Further Sun-driven warming is predictable, ending ~100 years (lag) after the 1991 solar peak. Reviewers: Drs Gary Couples and Tom Moslow.
The IPCC is starting to look more at the solar forcing of climate. Here’s a link to an abstract of a paper describing the recommended solar forcing dataset for CMIP6 and highlights changes with respect to CMIP5. Models using this protocol have much more accuracy on back casting temperature profiles. Imagine how much better those models would become if they included the rest of Dr. Higgs’ suggestions.
Here is an interesting video that points out the major problems in what passes for science in the climate-change realm. It’s only 8 minutes long and anyone reading this post should be able to understand what is being said. If you have any questions, let me know. Ben says he has over 500 papers in his collection.