In thisrecent report from Cecil, he says that due to global warming the next ice age has been postponed indefinitely.
However, apparently there is a mini ice age going to hit us in 2030 due to solar activity.
Thisis one news source, there’s a number in google.
I’m neither a climate nor solar scientist, I have zero clue if this information is reputable or not. So, the question is, did the big guy let one slip through to the keeper?
Was Cecil Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, not entirely correct?
Would it be a shock to learn that Cecil was right? Short answer: Look at this record of CO2 variations during ice age minima and interglacial maxima. The highest CO2 levels reached during the interglacial maxima of the past million years have been around 280 ppm to a maximum of 300 ppm. Ice ages occur when those levels decline toward the remarkably consistent ice age minima of around 180 ppm. Currently, CO2 is around 400 ppm and rising fast, and will continue to do so as long we burn fossil fuels and engage in other activities like land use changes. An ice age is impossible in those circumstances, and solar variations have minimal influence on climate except over extremely long geological timeframes. The thing that you quoted is not a “news source”, and some lone Russian quack doesn’t equal “solar scientists”.
Actually, The Independent is a significant UK newspaper. And Zharkova is a professor at a minor UK university. And the National Astronomy Meeting appears to be a big deal. She’s probably not a ‘lone Russian quack’.
I’m sure one of the resident astrophysicists will be along shortly to speak about the actual science.
I read the news on this from a couple different outlets also.
The news reports I read stated the authors did go back in history to a number of different starting points and ran their calculations to compare to the actual record, and that their predictors were quite accurate to the actual record.
The key factor as I recall reading was that there were not one, but two, different magnetic field cycles in the sun. The 2nd one a recent discovery.
To be fair to the big C, I believe his recent statement on ice age was prior to these news reports.
“Actual science” as opposed to what? Is there some issue with anything I said that makes it different from “actual science”?
The fact is that radiative forcing from changes in total solar irradiance during the entire post-industrial era is estimated at around 0.05 W/m2 and this is not likely to change in any significant way. This compares with total RF from anthropogenic sources which was 2.29 W/m2 in 2011, almost double what it was in 1980. Of that, 1.68 W/m**2 was due to CO2 alone. You won’t find any legitimate solar scientist who claims that variations in TSI are anything but the most minor factor in global climate on decadal or centenary timescales. In charts of climate forcings and feedbacks, solar variations are barely a blip and are completely overwhelmed by GHG forcings which dominate the climate.
I’ve never heard of Zharkova although I closely follow climate science, which is not surprising as she appears to be a math prof with a sideline in some type of solar research and in no way a climate scientist. Regardless of what you think of The Independent, this is appallingly bad reporting – and possibly bad science, too, I don’t know, but certainly bad reporting. The article cites “solar scientists” but names only Zharkova; it cites a coming mini ice age while I very much doubt that the research makes any such ridiculously outrageous conclusions.
Moreover it seems clear that Zharkova’s work, if it has any validity at all, is talking about significant reductions in solar activity – flares and sunspots and such, not solar output. This may be associated with the usual nominal variations in solar output, and in an extreme case may even be associated with a Maunder Minimum, which I infer is what she is implying. A Maunder Minimum may result in some reduction in solar UV output which may have regional climate effects due to changes in jet streams and other circulation systems, but it’s not going to have any significant overall global effect because the increase in the earth’s total energy budget is dominated by GHG forcings.
So anyway, regardless of whether there’s any valid science here at all, this is very, very bad and misleading reporting, and it’s no wonder that the comments section of the article seems to be attracting the usual gang of raving climate change denialists. If the Independent regards itself as a reputable newspaper, they should be ashamed of themselves.
I wish I had a dime for every one of these “news reports” that takes a (possibly) legitimate incremental scientific advance and turns it into “NEWS FLASH!!! EARTHSHAKING SCIENTIFIC BREAKTHROUGH!!! Scientists discover global warming has ceased/will cease/was never happening/was all a big misunderstanding”. Just one dime, that’s all I ask. I’d be a billionaire!
When I was a paperboy, the Arkansas Democrat had a front page story involving the Sun being 10 Kelvins cooler. The calculator that I had did not have enough significant figures for me to calculate the percent difference. The headline, in a font larger than the Pearl Harbor bombing said, “Sun Cooling Off!”
Once again, to be fair that works both ways. I see a number of news reports making outlandish claims of some effect or another of GW that never come about also.
I think it is fair to say making outlandish claims is common on both sides of the climate change debate.
That’s the kind of vague and generic statement that’s not really possible to debate and which risks taking the discussion way off topic. I’ll just say this. Any factual basis for such a claim would rest on the mass media’s propensity for misunderstanding, sensationalizing, and creating fake controversy by giving undue weight and attention to unsubstantiated contrarian views. This tends to strongly favor the “challenge” side and not the cautious and understated consensus of real science. This is, indeed, how the “climate change debate” arose in the first place, because in contemporary climate science there’s no debate at all about the fundamental basics surrounding greenhouse gases and the human role in their vastly accelerated concentrations, as borne out for example in the publications of the IPCC and the national science advisory bodies of every major nation in the world.
What I’m saying, IOW, with respect to your first comment, is that if Cecil had seen the OP-cited story, I don’t think it would have changed anything he wrote.
Excellent point, the Earth’s climate is driven by solar energy received. Certainly solar output is affected by solar activity, but a reduction of 60% in solar activity doesn’t reduce solar output by 60%. Whatever small percentage of reduction may well be more than counterbalanced by digging up carbon sequestered hundreds of millions of years, burning it and dumping the resultant CO[sub]2[/sub] into the atmosphere.
It may be foolish to make any predictions, but just plain stupid to continue burning fossil fuels without any safe-guards.
Nitpick. The surface temperature of the sun is less than 6000k. 10k is 1/600 around 0.2%. The core temperature of the sun is about 15,000,000k. 10k is 0.0000007 of that which would show on a standard cheap 8 digital calculator
I had a calculator before I graduated from college in 1971; they weren’t very common. But I’ve personally never seen a calculator with fewer than an 8 digit display. This siite seems to indicate that the first pocket digital calculators that came out in the 70s were 8 digits as I recall.
The headlines and summaries about this are horrid. Even Slashdot had this headline:
“Double-Dynamo Model Predicts 60% Fall In Solar Output In The 2030s”
That would make “ice age” an extreme underestimate. Way to read the article, bozos.
Note that even if we entered another Maunder Minimum, that’s still not an actual ice age and doesn’t last (comparatively) long. Europe had more crop failures, but they still managed to grow decent crops most years. In an ice age, there’s virtually no soil there to plant crops. Throw in climate change and I’m not worried, if it were true.
First reports of a brand new “discovery” of this nature turn out to be false the overwhelming majority of time.
And yet, the 16th Century cool period that corresponds to the Maunder Minimum is called the “Little Ice Age”. You may not agree with that, but then you’re disagreeing with the main corpus of historical climatology.
Anyone who’s ever been exposed to climatology understands. Perhaps the unwashed masses might picture ice sheets advancing over the continents, but I’m sure the publishers are counting on that to generate reads and clicks and ad impressions. shrug. It’s the way of the world.
ETA: climate scientists seem to all agree that calling the Maunder Minimum’s effect on European climate an “Ice Age” is a silly exaggeration. Still, that’s what it’s called, all the way back to 1939, and it’s an accepted term in the community. Neither I nor Slashdot are making that up.
